On 20/1/05 3:46 AM, "Arve Bersvendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> a) Change rel="alternate" to rel="feed", rel="subscription" or similar.
>>
>> On one (technical) level both make sense. However given that the
>> current version is pretty widely deployed, a) at least could be
>> counter-productive due to confusion. "alternate" might not be accurate
>> in a lot of cases, but as a simple convention is near enough.
>
> I know that established convention dictates that we can never use anything
> but "alternate", but this is overloading of the meaning of alternate - a
> mistake I fear we'll have to pay for somewhere down the road.
+1 to your concerns ... but then the Auto-Discovery spec is not yet an I-D
so maybe there is still time?
If we're stuck with 'alternate', then we're also harming the usefulness of
Atom Entry Documents by not being able to intelligently link to them from
their respective HTML pages. Similarly, if I had a feed which was "top new
blog feeds I found", I can't sensibly put a link to the feed into the
entries where I talk about them... in the following example, [1] is the link
to the html page which is the alternate to this entry in this feed, but
which is the link to the stand-alone Atom Entry Document for this entry, and
which is the link to the URL to subscribe to "Foo's Feed"?
<entry>
<title>foo's feed</title>
<summary>a wild and wacky feed about foo</summary>
<date>...</date>
<id>...</id>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="[1]" />
<link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" href="[2]" />
<link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" href="[3]" />
</entry>
e.
