- From: Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:00:52 +0000
Alexey Feldgendler wrote: > On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:42:06 +0600, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > >>>> <link rel=feed href=status.xml> >>>> <link rel=feed href=news.xml> >>>> <link rel=feed href=links.xml> > >>> In your example, what's the relation between status.xml and this page? > >> 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. > > 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. > > This makes a lot more sense to me. When that orange button lights on up on my browser's toolbar, I tend to think of it as "subscribe to this page", not "subscribe to some random thing that happens to be on this site somewhere and may or may not have anything to do with this page." rel="feed" the way Ian has defined it sounds more like type="feed" to me. (ignoring of course the fact that the type attribute actually takes a MIME type.) I think it's much more likely in the above scenario that those links in Alexey's example would be links to HTML documents containing the items from the feed, and *on there* would be the feed auto-discovery stuff. That's how I'd author it, anyway. (and also, by extension, how I'd expect other sites to author it.)
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 11:00:52 UTC