On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:15:48 +0100, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Just to say that I strongly agree with Jan's points below. We should
work to use the link relation type properly, and not get dazzled by the
current misuse of the alternate relation.
This problem isn't only with link relations. Or, if it is, it demands that
all existing and future link relations remain different for Feed and Entry
documents, since the use cases and processing of the documents will
differ. Although the relations themselves might actually be the same,
semantically speaking, they need to be named differently because
processing an entry with that relation is different from processing a feed
with that relation. Should we expand the relations with a 'type' attribute
instead? (/irony)
One could for example have the following at the same place:
- an html version of a blog post
- an <entry> representation of that blog post
- a <feed> for the history of changes to that blog post
That would suggest having different media types because one could not
place them at the same location if one only has application/atom+xml .
Another good example.
That does not decide the issue as to whether it is a good idea to do so.
I think it adds more weight to the "we need a new MIME type" scale.
For the moment I find the application/atom+xml;type=entry application/
atom+xml;type=feed more appealing than the other new media types by the
way.
So do I.
On the other hand having different mime types for every document format
is also crazy.
A new MIME type is useful when the processing of the resource differs and
at least knowing this beforehand is substantial information. Knowing this
for Atom Entry documents is substantial imo.
--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
