On 5/4/05, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/5/05 11:11 PM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The autodiscovery spec is a reasonable interpretation of the *one > > line* definition of the 'alternate' relation. > > how is a feed of recent entries a "substitute version for the document in > which the link occurs" when that document is some blog post long since > dropped out of the feed?
I don't know. Time is a funny thing. I think it would be a mistake to see this as an opportunity to invent a supremely capable and expressive autodiscovery spec. I've seen mozilla, safari, NNW do autodiscovery. I'm sure bots from PubSub, Technorati, Yahoo, etc do it as well. We should document what they do, and settle on one arbitrary choice where they differ for no good reason. Mark's draft does an excellent job of documenting that reality. I tried to rewrite it once, only to later realize what gross errors I'd made as I tried to clarify or add features to it. I can assure you that everything is there for a real-world reason. I suggested a few changes to section 6, which seems like overspecification to me, but that's the only thing I suggest we touch. Robert Sayre
