On 11/5/05 2:24 AM, "Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceDifferentRelValue > > -1 > > I mainly don't see the point of changing it.
The point is that just using 'alternate' is hideously ambiguous, and leads to interoperability problems because you cannot rely on the value of @type to accurately guess whether @href points to a feed or some other document. In the history of feed autodiscovery, the exact syntax was corrected within days of being first announced. Since then it's become popular, even without official documentation in a specification. During that time people have come to realise that there is a problem with 'alternate' ... consider that pre-spec time as being a beta test period ... and now that we are on the verge of releasing a fully documented specification it is our last real opportunity to fix any mistakes. Robert says anyone can mint new @rel types, but seriously, in the face of popular usage of 'alternate' being backed up by a RFC specification, does anyone think 'feed' would have a chance? Put it in the spec and we are saying "use of 'alternate' is flawed, the preferred option is 'feed'", and it will have more potency. > Also, while "alternate" > expressly says the feed corresponds in some way to the content of the > current page, "feed" simply says "here is a feed of some kind", and > isn't a relationship at all. Depends on how you read the word 'feed'. It can indicate a relationship, that being "this is the feed in which an entry representing this page (or portion thereof) was once found, and may again be found". I, like some, feel uncomfortable with those usage of autodiscovery links to point to just any feed, from any page. Links to feed resource documents are not necessarily links to feeds. e.
