On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:35:05 +1100, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How is a resource which shows the last 15 entries as of today an
"alternative" representation of an entry which was published six months ago and has long slipped out of the sliding window?
It isn't, and that's not what I meant. I think 'alternate' links are being overloaded with these kinds of meanings all the time; e.g. individual HTML pages pointing to the feed in which they occur as RSS items as 'alternate'. That's wrong and I agree that we should have another type of link relation for those links. But I'm not sure 'feed' is the correct one.
Its not the best word, but others which are better are already taken for
other purposes (eg "source", "origin", etc), or are clumsy word-pairs which are still not properly indicative of the ongoing publishing nature
(eg. DC's "part-of").
I think 'part-of' is better. It's a relation and describes accurately what the link is pointing to. In the feed one could even have 'rev' links to go the other way, although that isn't necessary.
-- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/ «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
