Mark Baker wrote:
> [snip]
> If HTML 5 (and current practice) doesn't change, but we defer to them
> for the specification of autodiscovery, then a new media type would be
> one way forward. But it should be reusable for all non-"feed" (i.e.
> from a user POV, as above) Atom documents, not just entry documents;
> perhaps application/atom-no-feed+xml. It's an ugly hack, but it's
> better than the alternative of many more specific Atom-related media
> types, which atomentry+xml might set a precedent for.
>
Blech! :-)
I think it's worthwhile to separate the two distinct issues at play: The
Purpose of the Link and the Type of Resource.
The ambiguity in the media type has come up several times in WG
discussions for more than just autodiscovery. Every time it comes up
there is some speculation about whether adding a type parameter would be
helpful then folks move on to something else without really coming to a
conclusion.
I agree with you that the HTML5 definition of "alternate" is lacking but
I understand why they've done things that way and I applaud their
effort. They're documenting existing practice even if it is
fundamentally flawed. At least they're moving things in the right
direction with the "feed" link relation but it's too early to tell if
that effort is going to pan out in the end.
> [snip]
> I prefer the new relationship to a new media type because it's less
> disruptive; it doesn't require futzing around with existing specs and
> implementations.
>
Possibly. But at this point I'm not yet convinced.
- James
