On 26/1/05 5:02 PM, "Asbj�rn Ulsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How is a resource which shows the last 15 entries as of today an >> "alternative" representation of an entry which was published six months >> ago and has long slipped out of the sliding window? > > It isn't, and that's not what I meant. I think 'alternate' links are being > overloaded with these kinds of meanings all the time; e.g. individual HTML > pages pointing to the feed in which they occur as RSS items as > 'alternate'. That's wrong and I agree that we should have another type of > link relation for those links. But I'm not sure 'feed' is the correct one. There is a special case of html pages for which rss/atom feeds are an "alternate" -- those html pages which contain the most recently published entries, sliding window style. Sadly, while 'alternate' is appropriate for those resources it was then conflated with the semantic of "here is the xml resource you can subscribe to". >> Its not the best word, but others which are better are already taken for >> other purposes (eg "source", "origin", etc), or are clumsy word-pairs >> which are still not properly indicative of the ongoing publishing nature >> (eg. DC's "part-of"). > > I think 'part-of' is better. It's a relation and describes accurately what > the link is pointing to. In the feed one could even have 'rev' links to go > the other way, although that isn't necessary. Ah, but an Atom entry would also have a "part-of" relationship to an Atom Feed Document which is the collected entries for the month of June 2004, and that Atom Feed Document is not the one you would subscribe to for future publications of entries. This is making the same mistake as above with "alternate". e.
