W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2007

[whatwg] PaceEntryMediatype

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:21:13 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0711051719480.30809@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>    <!DOCTYPE HTML>
> >>>    <title>Feeds for this site</title>
> >>>    <link rel=feed href=status.xml>
> >>>    <link rel=feed href=news.xml>
> >>>    <link rel=feed href=links.xml>
> >>>    <p>This page links to the three feeds for this site.
> > 
> > status.xml is just a resource that provides a syndication feed. It is 
> > not necessarily associated with a particular Web page.
> 
> If there is no particular relation, then it should not be <link>. The 
> <link> element is for resources which are in specific typical relations 
> to the current document.

Well, it's related in the sense that people looking at the current page 
might find it useful. I don't see that that is a problem.


> I would mark it up like this:
> 
> <h1>Feeds for this site</h1>
> <ul>
>    <li><a href="status.xml" type="application/atom+xml">Status feed</a></li>
>    <li><a href="news.xml" type="application/atom+xml">News feed</a></li>
>    <li><a href="links.xml" type="application/atom+xml">Links feed</a></li>
> </ul>
> 
> Note the absence of rel attribute on the <a>: there is no specific 
> typical relation between the current document and the referenced 
> resources.

That's certainly an option (though I would recommend adding rel=feed), but 
I don't see that that makes <link> any less useful here.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 09:21:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:47:42 GMT