I can see a reason to distinguish more strongly between a feed and an
entry. And this is with regards to creating new collections.
The best way I see to create a new collection would be to POST a
<feed> </feed> containing no entries to a collection end point.
Though that is very similar to POSTing an <entry> I think the
distinction is worth preserving at that point.
I am not sure if this has any bearing on mime types though.
Henry
On 8 Dec 2006, at 21:40, Mark Baker wrote:
On 12/8/06, Asbjørn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:42:40 +0100, Jan Algermissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that is an issue of linking semantics, not link target media
types.
Wrong. The link relation 'alternate' is perfectly valid for both
Entry and
Feed documents, depending on what type of resource they are linked
from.
An index page of a website can have an 'alternate' relation to an
Atom
Feed, while an individual article page (or "entry" page) can have an
'alternate' relation to an Atom Entry.
As it can to a feed with one entry.
Both link relations are identical,
but the client has absolutely no clue before it GETs the URI
whether what
sits on the other end is an Atom Feed or an Atom Entry.
Nor should it need to distinguish, just like it doesn't need to
distinguish between a feed with multiple entries, versus one with one
entry.
Mark.
