Robert Sayre wrote:
The autodiscovery spec is a reasonable interpretation of the *one line* definition of the 'alternate' relation. It is not contradictory.
But a feed is not a "substitute version" of an "archive page" as most archived entries are not in the feed anymore.
That said, I'm totally in favor of using rel="alternate" to link to a feed from the _alternate_ HTML version.
From an archive page, you should rather use rel="start".
Actually, here's my view of those things: In the "latest news" page (generally the homepage for a weblog): <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" href="feed.atom">
In a "category" page:
<link rel="start" type="text/html" href="../index.html">
<link rel="start" type="application/atom+xml" href="../feed.atom">
<link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" href="category.atom">
<link rel="section" type="text/html" href="category/index.html">
<link rel="section" type="application/atom+xml" href="category/category.atom">
In a "single-entry archive" page: <link rel="start" type="text/html" href="../../index.html"> <link rel="start" type="application/atom+xml" href="../../feed.atom"> <link rel="section" type="text/html" href="../index.html"> <link rel="section" type="application/atom+xml" href="../category.atom"> <!-- no alternate -->
However, is this enough for the autodiscovery purpose?
-- Thomas Broyer
