- From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:03:32 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 07:52:18PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> It works in some cases; I imagine it wants a mime type as well. See
> <http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/http/link/>.
Aha, thanks for the link.
A few weeks ago, some friends did a survey, which concluded:
'so it only seems that it would be a "problem" if you had a browser which
*only* requires some stylesheet which isn't CSS. and then the "problem"
equates to the amount of latency and bandwidth incurred in downloading the
CSS, which may be less than 1 KB / so link/@type is completely useless'
- http://swhack.com/logs/2009-08-14#T10-21-41
And after correcting my typo, it works, so I wont be adding this.
>> <link rel="up alternative" type="application/atom+xml" href="/index.atom">
>
> "up alternative"? I hope these are two different link relations?
Yes, they I would have used it like:
<link rel="up" type="application/atom+xml" href="/">
<link rel="up" hreflang="fr" href="/index.fr">
<link rel="up alternative" type="application/docbook+xml" href="/index.dbk">
So it would form a simple combination of relationships.
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 18:04:15 UTC