On 24/11/06 9:28 AM, "Thomas Broyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Being a syndication feed" is expressed by the media type, there's no
> need for a 'rel' value.
I disagree, but for slightly different reasons. Consider these two links:
<link rel="feed"
type="application/atom+xml;type=feed" href="/latest.atom" />
<link rel="alternate"
type="application/atom+xml;type=feed" href="/2006/10.atom" />
They are both Atom Feed Documents, but the former is the syndication feed to
which one would reasonably subscribe to for delivery of more content like
you're looking at, and the latter is simply an alternate representation of
the current content (in this case being an archive page for October 2006),
and subscribing to it would be foolish.
Also, how do we have syndication feeds in different representation formats
(eg. RSS), or are you proposing the ";type=feed" gets appended to all the
various media types as needed?
> "The feed keyword indicates that the referenced document is a
> syndication feed. If the alternate link type is also specified, then
> the feed is specifically the feed for the current document;
> otherwise, the feed is just a syndication feed, not necessarily
> associated with a particular Web page."
There's a third case they don't mention here, which is if 'alternate' is
used but 'feed' is not also specified ... in which case it's not a "feed" in
the sense of a source of continuing updates, but more like a static resource
(subject to the usual bit rot and tweaky updates).
The three cases are:
@rel="feed"
@rel="alternate feed"
@rel="alternate"
Would be nice if there was an RFC we could point at which clarified what is
meant by each. Would go a long way towards overcoming deployment inertia.
e.
