On 1 Apr 2005, at 19:52, Thomas Broyer wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 1 Apr 2005, at 14:53, Eric Scheid wrote:
Prior art in other specs says the relationship is from where the
link is
found, and to the thing at @href.
I think we are agreeing here.
The link is from the representation entry/entry
On 2/4/05 8:15 PM, Henry Story [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no. ...omething.else.atom is a resource, not a representation [1]. So what
you mean to say is that ...somethingelse.atom is an alternate resource of
me.
Firstly, why is html.../html a representation, while entry
.../entry not a
On 2 Apr 2005, at 14:16, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 2/4/05 8:15 PM, Henry Story [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no. ...omething.else.atom is a resource, not a representation [1].
So what
you mean to say is that ...somethingelse.atom is an alternate
resource of
me.
Firstly, why is html.../html a
Henry Story wrote:
On 1 Apr 2005, at 19:52, Thomas Broyer wrote:
Taking back Eric's example:
entry
...
link rel=http://example.org/rels#next;
href=http://example.net/somethingelse.atom; /
...
/entry
My interpretation is that ...somethingelse.atom is the next (entry
or
Why isn't this requirement a may instead of a must? I can see having
a link with rel=alternate if indeed a alternate version does exist. It
does not make sense to put in some something misleading if an alternate
does not exist.
I recently sought out and joined this list precisely because I
