Eric Scheid wrote: >On 6/5/05 7:22 AM, "Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>I've basically concluded that the keys to autodiscovery of feeds, in the >>general sense, should not be three (rel, type, and href), but two (type >>and href). Type is plenty of specification that it's a feed. Claiming >>it's relationship as "feed" doesn't seem correct. There are a few >>mime-types used, and the one for atom (application/atom+xml) will be an >>official standard as soon as the draft is accepted by the IETF. >> >> > >Using @type only is not sufficient, since both Atom Feed Documents *and* >Atom Entry Documents use the same mime-type. One is a feed, the other is >not. > >Similarly, RSS 1.0 isn't clearly distinguished by mime-type - there are lots >of other resources which are 'application/rdf+xml' (eg. FOAF) > >e. > > Hrm. This is an interesting point. I'm not too concerned about "find every feed, regardless of relevance" because I think only search engines will be interested in it, especially if all the other cases are marked. They can bear to check the feed and see what the root element is.
This also makes rel="alternate" seem like an even worse choice for *feed* autodiscovery because it would make sense to link to an atom *entry* as rel="alternate" from the page for an individual entry. I really don't think @rel is the place to address concerns about type. That's really the job of @type (of course). If we need to declare more mime-types, then so be it. -Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma
