2006/11/29, James M Snell:
The problem I have with the WHAT-WG definition of the alternate and feed
relations is the unintended conflict that occurs when the alternate
representation of a page happens to be an Atom Entry Document.
The HTML5 draft says,
If the alternate keyword is
] On Behalf Of Thomas Broyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 16:04
To: Atom-Syntax
Subject: Re: WHAT-WG, feed and alternate (was: Re:
PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless)
2006/11/29, James M Snell:
The problem I have with the WHAT-WG definition of the alternate and feed
relations is the unintended
The problem I have with the WHAT-WG definition of the alternate and feed
relations is the unintended conflict that occurs when the alternate
representation of a page happens to be an Atom Entry Document.
The HTML5 draft says,
If the alternate keyword is used with the type attribute set
On 11/28/06, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. We define a new media type for Atom Entry Documents,
e.g. application/atomentry+xml
No one relies on Atom Entry alternates now, so this is the best
option. We should tack it onto the APP draft, since that will solve
issues with the
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-29 00:20]:
3. We define a new media type for Atom Entry Documents,
e.g. application/atomentry+xml
+1
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-29 00:40]:
We should tack it onto the APP draft, since that will solve
issues with the accept
On 11/28/06, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are three possible solutions:
1. We ask the WHAT-WG to fix their spec so the ambiguity in the Atom
media type is addressed
What ambiguity? There's no ambiguity AFAICT.
But the WHAT spec does need fixing. Assuming rel=feed
