On Apr 3, 2005 1:51 PM, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, I observe a lot of people speaking up for <link>-less feeds, > presenting some plausible use cases. I observe only Sam speaking up > for retaining the compulsory link. I observe at least one person > speaking up saying "if it's compulsory I'll generate a fake one", which > seems significant to me. > > I'm starting to smell possible consensus; are there more people here > who agree with Sam? If so, speak up.
I agree with Sam, +1 to the required <link>. The argument that you can't have an HTML representation are weak, since *I* can generate one for your feed, whether you like it or not, ala: http://www.rss2html.com/ I can also generate an XSLT sheet that transforms Atom into HTML then use the W3C XLST service to transform an Atom feed into HTML: http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xslt Now the generated HTML may not be optimal but I hope this shows that barrier to generating an HTML 'alternate' is not onerous, and that the link should remain a MUST. Thanks, -joe -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
