On 18/10/05 9:07 AM, "Thomas Broyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depends whether @rel="self" was really meant for subscribing and the
> spec wording is not precise enough about it; this could then be fixed
> with an errata rather than create a new link relation
IIRC, it came into existence to solve the feed subscription problem.
However, I don't recall that the issue of feed archives featured much in
that discussion, and that thus the now understood problem of 'self' vs
'subscribe' wasn't envisaged.
Fortunately, the link relation 'self' was defined in such a woolly way we
could get away with re-purposing it. A few articles here or there, a bit of
blog chatter, and the arrival of the fabled Developers Guide and we'd be
set.
I'd think this would be favourable to having to come up with a different
pair of relations, like
'self' = what you subscribe to,
may not look anything like the chunk in front of you
'this-chunk' = link to what you are looking at,
not to be confused with 'self'
(Maybe the Developers Guide will have a chapter called "Up Is Down - The New
Reality", which would explain that a link to 'self' doesn't, we use 'next'
to go backwards, and 'alternate' for feed discovery may not point to actual
alternates of the content in front of you ;-)
> Otherwise, +0.5, because it seems to overlap @rel="first" (or "last"?)
> or I missed something
There's nothing wrong with having an overlap like this, because they don't
always overlap. Consider the 'subscribe' link to nature.com/nm/ which I
described earlier - two different URIs, but the same eventual document.
e.
