- From: Ernest Prabhakar <prabhaka@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:35:12 -0800
Hi James, On Dec 1, 2006, at 11:25 AM, James M Snell wrote: > You're right that the differentiation in the content-type is of less > importance but without it there's no way for me to unambiguously > indicate that a resource has both an Atom Feed representation and an > Atom Entry representation. The best I could do is say "This things > has > two Atom representations". Keep in mind that I want to be able to > differentiate the types of alternate representations available without > having to look at any of the other rel keywords. I understand that this is *what* you want, but I'm still unclear "why." From where I sit, Kyle's argument makes sense: keep the syntax in content-type, and the semantics in rel-type. This seems both simpler and more consistent with how the web works today. No? Or is there some overriding reason for ignoring rel-type? -- Ernie P.
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 11:35:12 UTC