A. Pagaltzis wrote:
@rel="related-feed" ??? A bit more specific than "related",
the nature of the relation is left unspecified. User agents
can choose to handle in whatever way they wish.
That doesn’t seem to confer more meaning than you can already
express by [EMAIL PROTECTED]'related' and @type='application/atom+xml'].
Picky picky ;-)
I think what we want to say is that “aggregators consuming this
feed should consider automatically subscribing to the referenced
feed as well,” which is a much tighter relationship than the
loose “related.”
Maybe “companion?” I don’t know if I like that term, but it’s the
best single-word description I can think of off the top of my
head.
I think we could just as easily attach the "you really should
auto-subscribe" semantic to @rel="related" @type="application/atom+xml"
without incurring any need for coming up with a new link type. On a
conceptual level more-specific is better, but on a practical level, a
new @rel label doesn't seem to buy us enough benefit to justify
requiring developers to implement support for it. @rel="related" feeds
can simply be handled differently than other @rel="related" stuff.
- James
