- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:42:19 +0600
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:01:14 +0600, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >> Why is it useful for a browser to make a list of a bunch of random feeds >> that have no relation to one another or to the current page? > Well they sort of have a relation -- they're feeds that the author thinks > the user would find useful. This is no more tight a relation than "a page that the author thinks the user would find useful", which is usually expressed with <a> rather than <link>. > This is something that happens already in the real world -- I'm just > trying > to make the spec distinguish "alternate" from "feed" when it comes to > such feeds. Whoever is doing it abuses <link>. rel="feed" means "the feed for the current document", rel="alternate" means "an alternate representation of the current document". Therefore, rel="alternate feed" means "alternate representation of the current document by a feed". >> Currently the orange RSS icon means "Subscribe to this page". This is a >> lot more useful (in my opinion) than it meaning "subscribe to some >> random thing". > No, it doesn't. It means "subscribe to something the author made > available". Currently you have no way to know if it is the current page's > feed or just a list of random related feeds. Surely the author could have referenced any irrelevant feed but that's not a good thing to do. Conscious authors should only use rel="feed" as defined in the spec. -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Saturday, 9 December 2006 03:42:19 UTC