You're right that the differentiation in the content-type is of less importance but without it there's no way for me to unambiguously indicate that a resource has both an Atom Feed representation and an Atom Entry representation. The best I could do is say "This things has two Atom representations". Keep in mind that I want to be able to differentiate the types of alternate representations available without having to look at any of the other rel keywords.
- James Kyle Marvin wrote: > [snip] > I see the separation but I'm still missing a clear justifiication for > it. I don't see content-type as having anything to do with the > "audience". It's about what media format you'd get back if you > dereference the href and rel is about how you can interpret/interact > with it. I feel like the primary audience for content-type is likely > to be used in selecting some type of parser when retrieving the > resource. Orthogonal to this, the "rel" value assigns some semantic > meaning to the resource (what does the entry or feed describe) and might > also specify what interaction model you might expect via the href (ex. > "edit" implies APP edit semantics on an entry resource). > > Cheers! >
