fantasai wrote:
>
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 4, 2005, at 09:16, Mark Pilgrim wrote:
>>
>>> Then I'm confused as to why you can't just release running code that
>>> hard-codes rel="alternate". You know, like people have already done.
>>
>>
>> Sure you can. ("Can" in the sense that it is possible.)
>>
>> However, when other things are equal, I think misusing an existing
>> relation (feed usually is not a proper alternate representation) is
>> worse than specifying a new one without all the profile fluff.
>>
>> Still, I am well aware that the other things are not equal in this
>> case (ie. there is deployed code), which is why I was not arguing in
>> favor of rel='feed' per se, but pointing out that the particular
>> reasoning against it did not hold water, IMO.
>
>
> It is the case that many, if not most, autodiscovery links *are* linking
> to valid alternates of the current page. Taking into account the wide
> use of the rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" combination, the
> spec could be written to
>
> - specify that any link with rel="feed" and type="application/atom+xml"
> indicates an autodiscoverable Atom feed
> - specify that UAs MAY also recognize the rel="alternate" and
> type="application/atom+xml" combination as an autodiscoverable Atom
> feed even if 'feed' is not among the rel values,
> - but specify that authors SHOULD NOT (or MUST NOT) leave out the
> 'feed' value
> - recommend that links that do indicate a feed version of the current
> HTML page SHOULD link to that feed with both link types
>
> Blogging software is a fast-moving industry. If the draft editor makes
> this change and notifies the community, I suspect it will not be long
> before most software supports both syntaxes.
>
> ~fantasai
I think you've missed how things are working at the moment. Most
programs implemented what's in the spec before it's written. Mark is
trying to negotiate a common standard when implementations already
exist. A lot of experimentation has already occurred.
One of the key points seems to be that autodiscovery is not meant to
find all feeds linked to on a page, just the ones that serve as
alternates to the current one. If people wanted this functionality, they
would have done it by now.
I think you have three separate cases of autodiscovery:
* the feed for *this* page - handled by this autodiscovery proposal
* other feeds the author reads or recommends - usually done by linking
to a separate file. Some quick searching reveals one suggestion to use
rel="blogroll" for this
* any other feeds linked to for any reason at all - seems to be little
interest in
I don't think combining these three into one case will do any good. In
fact, I think it's confusing and unusable.
-Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma
