On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Arve Bersvendsen wrote: > > 1) Change the attribute value for the rel from "alternate" to "feed", or > some similar wording. A feed is not always an alternate of the HTML > document in which it occurs. Suggested replacement text:
I'm all for avoiding pigeonholing like that. But what about the case when a feed IS an alternate version? HTML says to use "alternate", this says to use "feed". Which takes precedence? Plus, "feed" is kind of application-specific. What about "related"? Consider also that HTML allows alternate stylesheets to be identified with the relationships "alternate" and "stylesheet". HTML overrides the semantics of "alternate" in this case (since the stylesheet isn't an alternate version of the page, it's just an alternate stylesheet). Who's to say we can't overload it a little for this case? So I might suggest, in order of preference: 1. "alternate" for feeds that can be considered alternate versions of the current document, and "related" for feeds that can be discovered via this page, but aren't actually an alternate form of the content on that page; or 2. "feed" for all feeds, and "alternate feeds" for feeds that can be considered alternate versions of the current document. (This would use "alternate" with its stand-alone meaning, not the meaning given to it in the "alternate stylesheet" case.) > 2) I am not too fond of requiring a type attribute, since feeds may be > served in multiple formats from a single URL. I have previously performed Omitting the type is only practical when you have a link relationship dedicated to this specific application. If we continue to use generic relationships like "alternate" and/or "related", it becomes a little inefficient since you have to hit the link targets pretty much indiscriminately looking for one that responds with a media type you're looking for. I expect that many of my implementations will utilize content negotiation (using the same URL as an HTML representation, where needed), so I expect that I'll have some links like: <link rel="alternate" href="/" type="application/atom+xml"> <link rel="alternate" href="/" type="application/rss+xml"> Or even <link rel="alternate" href="" type="application/atom+xml"> <link rel="alternate" href="" type="application/rss+xml"> As crazy as that looks, is there a better way of saying "this URL is also available in these media types"? 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
