On Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 04:49 PM, Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma wrote:
Eric Scheid wrote:On 4/5/05 11:11 PM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I'd suggest placing the link element only on the front page of your bloghow is a feed of recent entries a "substitute version for the document inThe autodiscovery spec is a reasonable interpretation of the *one line* definition of the 'alternate' relation.
which the link occurs" when that document is some blog post long since
dropped out of the feed?
if this is a concern. The feed usually is a "substitute version for the
document in which the link occurs" for that, at least. There's nothing
in the spec that even suggests you to place the autodiscovery
information in archive pages. In practice, people probably will, but I'm
not sure it's worth worrying about.
There is a good reason for putting the link in the individual entry pages: if people get to your blog via some location other than your blog homepage, you don't want them to have to go to your homepage to subscribe to your blog's feed. In such a case, sure, "alternate" wouldn't be descriptive of the feed's relationship to the isolated page, but the way that such links will be processed by browsers will match the intent for publishing the link -> "if you find this entry interesting enough to want to subscribe to my feed, here's where to do it".
I personally don't care whether it's "alternative" or something like "feed". "Alternative" is a more generally applicable term, but yeah, it doesn't sound quite right on individual entry pages.
