- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:21:13 +0000 (UTC)
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 UTC