+1
I think it makes a lot less sense for a feed than it does for an entry.
Henry
On 23 Mar 2005, at 14:19, Brett Lindsley wrote:
I know this discussion has occured before, but I would like to revisit the question of why an atom:feed MUST contain at least one atom:link element with a relation of "alternate" (-06 4.1.1).
The defintition of the alternate representation is it "identifes an alternate
version of the resource" (Sec 4.2.9.2). However, is it realistic to believe
that *every* feed has an alternate version?
This becomes even more confusing if one considers the possibility of branching out using service.feed to filtered, searched or aggregated views. One would expect the link to have an alternate representation of the filtered, searched or aggregated feed as well.
I have seen some examples where a home page was used for all of the
alternate representations. Is a home page really an alternate representation?
Putting a home page in feeds that are filtered or aggregated versions
is also misleading because the home page would most likely not be an
alternate representation of the filtered/aggregated feed.
I can also think of situations where a server hosts feeds that do not have
an alternate representation nor have a home page. In this case, why
have a required link that serves no useful purpose.
Why isn't this requirement a "may" instead of a "must"? I can see having
a link with rel=alternate if indeed a alternate version does exist. It does not
make sense to put in some something misleading if an alternate does not
exist.
Brett Lindsley, Motorola Labs
