> on > http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2011/04/atom-content-negotiation.html i > suggested a <link> usage that is not allowed by atom (because extension > attributes need to be namespaced), but i think the problem is worth a > solution and i'm planning to write a small draft for it.
I don't get why you rejected the "link content variants" solution. You don't necessarily have to include the HTML version inline - you could just have a very basic text summary. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom";> <title>Example Feed</title> <link href="http://example.org/"/> <updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated> <author> <name>John Doe</name> </author> <id>urn:uuid:60a76c80-d399-11d9-b93C-0003939e0af6</id> <entry> <title>Atom-Powered Robots Run Amok</title> <link type="text/html" href="http://example.org/2003/12/13/atom03.html"/> <link type="application/xml" href="http://example.org/2003/12/13/atom03.xml"/> <link type="application/json" href="http://example.org/2003/12/13/atom03.json"/> <link type="application/rdf+xml" href="http://example.org/2003/12/13/atom03.rdf"/> <id>urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a</id> <updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated> <summary>Some text.</summary> </entry> </feed> And even the summary isn't strictly necessary. You don't seem to be particularly interested in producing a feed that would be useful to a typical feed reader, so you might as well go with the bare minimum necessary to make the feed valid. If you think it absolutely necessary to create a new rel type to make your system work, you should probably be asking yourself whether you really want Atom as your data format. TLDR: I think your proposal sucks.
