Of course I'm also for making an alternate link for a feed a MAY rather than a MUST.
Regards, Martin.
At 07:57 05/04/03, David Nesting wrote:
>
>> Why isn't this requirement a "may" instead of a "must"? I can see having
>> a link with rel=alternate if indeed a alternate version does exist. It
>> does not make sense to put in some something misleading if an alternate
>> does not exist.
>
>I recently sought out and joined this list precisely because I wanted
>to see if this issue had been addressed. I don't think it's reasonable
>to assume there will always be an alternate version of a feed. If this
>remains a "MUST", I have no choice but to honor this by using a dummy
>value for an "alternate" page, since I may not have an alternate.
>
>Without any background, it seems to me that the goal here is to "require"
>a link *back* to an HTML page that is presumed to have provided an
>"alternate" link to this Atom resource. This of course assumes that an
>HTML or non-Atom version actually exists, and that resource is independent
>of the Atom resource. (Consider that I may have an HTML version, but
>it could be derived from the Atom version using XSLT. It's not accurate
>to consider this an "alternate" when it's an XML style sheet involved.)
>
>I couldn't find any reference to this issue in the mailing list, aside
>from this (thankfully recent) thread. If it's been addressed before,
>could someone point me to the thread in the list archives?
>
>David
>
>--
> == David Nesting WL7RO Fastolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fastolfe.net/ ==
> fastolfe.net/me/pgp-key A054 47B1 6D4C E97A D882 C41F 3065 57D9 832F AB01
