On 11/5/05 1:20 PM, "Eric Scheid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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. On reflection, I thought I'd better check what the spec says... http://philringnalda.com/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.html The purpose of Atom autodiscovery is for clients who know the URI of a web page to find the location of that page's associated Atom feed. There is also this in section 6 € The order of the autodiscovery elements is significant. The first element SHOULD point to the publisher's preferred feed for the document. ... thus [1] auto-discovery is *not* for the general case of linking to just *any* feed resource, but specifically the one associated to the current page/site. Which is a specific relationship, one we can name 'feed' (or 'fred', or 'barney' ... but 'feed' gets my vote). e. [1] I conclude ... and so might any reader of the spec who is ignorant of the full backstory.
