2006/11/30, Ian Hickson:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
> I'd prefer basing autodiscovery on the media types and not at all on the
> relationships. A "feed" relationship would only help finding the "living
> resource" (similar to rel="current" in the Atom Relationship Registry)
> if you're not already "on" it (in which case, rel="alternate" would be
> used).
>
> UAs would then obviously continue to support autodiscovery using
> "alternate" all-over-the-place, this would just be a lucky side-effect;
> and everyone would be happy.
So as far as I can tell, that's what HTML5 currently requires. Am I
interpreting you correctly?
Hmm, I'm afraid you don't.
For some background, see these mails on the Atom lists:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19100.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19107.html
There's a parallel discussion on the Atom lists about the Atom media types.
A summary of my problem with HTML5's autodiscovery:
- there shouldn't be a 'rel' value for "subscribability",
subscribability is a matter of whether and how an UA can process
content from a particular media type
- HTML5 shouldn't say anything about which media type is
"subscribable": application/atom+xml can be an Atom Entry, and there
might be other subscribable media types (some aggregators allow you to
subscribe to HTML); in other words, there shouldn't be any assumption
of subscribability *from within the spec*.
- rel="feed" could be useful, but as a real relationship between
resources (the resource pointed to by a rel="feed" link is a 'feed' in
which the "current" resource "believes" it appears or has appeared as
a contained item), not as defined currently in HTML5.
Actually my main problems are:
- the definition of rel="feed"
- the assumption that rel="alternate"+Atom or rel="alternate"+RSS is
equivalent to rel="feed alternate"
--
Thomas Broyer
