Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:47:05 +0100, David Powell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An example would be an HTML page with
rel="alternative" links
pointing to a feed and an Atom Entry document.
My thought on this is that that's actually broken. If not according to
RFC 4287 or anything else, it's most likely wrong semantics involved.
Ether the current HTML document is an alternate representation of the
Atom Entry, or it is an alternate representation of the Feed.
Or both. Millions of blog entry pages have both an entry and a set of
comments on that entry. Yes, it's stretching the concept of
'alternate' a long, long way.
In any case, the relation type 'feed' would be better suited for the
feed reference and 'alternate' would suit the Entry reference if the
Entry indeed was an alternate representation of the HTML document.
Agreed, in an ideal world.
|
