Stefan Eissing wrote:
Am 09.05.2005 um 17:13 schrieb Bill de h�ra:
Why can't ve just leave a protocol element out if we don't have information for it???
Because it allows someone to assert there is no alternate link for their feed. That's different from leaving an alternate link out.
Does not compute. How is that different for a feed reader?
Why does it need to be different for a feed reader?
If you say that there is no alternate link for your feed and I make your very feed available through "my" server, does your feed have an alternate link or not?
We could just as easily argue about all the possible such URLs that might be the case but aren't listed as alternates. Are they alternate links? What about an alternate link I added for the sake of spec, because I have no alternate. Is that an alternate link? Such counterfactuals are fun, but have no bearing here.
Currently you MUST provide an alternate feed link. People are saying they don't always have one to provide, which encourages garbage out. That satisfying a spec constraint for its own sake. This addition allows someone to say there is no alternate for this link. It's less ambiguous than not providing an alternate and more useful than providing junk links. Not present is not the same as not the case.
cheers Bill
