Dan Brickley wrote:
* Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-05 02:35+1000]
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?
Because the HTML definition is close to meaningless. I can substitute
any document for another, and the 2nd is a substitution not through any intrinsic characteristics, but because it was substituted. Many of the HTML link type definitions don't bear up under detailed scrutiny...
I think you're taking your anarchic interpretation a little too far there. Especially there: if you read the *spec*, you might notice that the definition of 'alternate' continues:
# When used together with the media attribute, it implies a version # designed for a different medium (or media).
From section 12.2.4, we also have
# The rel attribute specifies the relationship of the linked document # with the current document.
So, according to HTML 4.01 -- which is the definitive spec as far as HTML is concerned -- the following link
<link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" href="feed.atom">
designates a link to a version of the linking document that is application/atom+xml.
Again, my friend's blog feed is not an Atom version of /my/ web page; linking to it as "alternate" would be wrong.
~fantasai
