- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:31:59 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Mark Baker wrote: > > > > How about introducing a new rel keyword: nonfeed? > > I just suggested that on the Atom lists. > > > Then one could say rel="alternate nonfeed" and it would be clear that > > referenced URL contains an alternative representation that is not a > > feed. > > Well, that wouldn't work because agents would still pick out "alternate" > and the media type and infer "subscribability" from that. "alternate" > would have to be left off. Hence my (somewhat) serious suggestion of > "alternate-non-feed". > > But yah, I think that's a decent way forward. I'm still not convinced > that the harmful practice of inferring rel="feed" is beyond the point of > no return, but nobody's chiming in to agree with me, and I don't have > the time to do the necessary implementer-herding myself, so oh well. I agree with Simon on this: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Simon Pieters wrote: > > I don't see why this: > > <link rel=alternate href=foo.atom> > > ...isn't good enough. It is a hyperlink to an alternate representation > of the current document in application/atom+xml format that is not a > syndication feed. IMHO introducing new rel keywords is an uglier hack > than just omitting the type="" attribute. It's not clear to me that there is an actual real-life problem here. It seems there is a perceived theoretical problem, but we also have a theoretical solution which works in practice. Unless the problem becomes actually widespread, this seems like it would be solution enough. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 14:31:59 UTC