The concept of reusing atom namespaced elements as extensions inside
other atom namespaced elements has come up before and has generally been
frowned upon.
James Holderness wrote:
Antone Roundy wrote:
Here's a final option--is it legal? Is it better or worse than (a)
in any ways?
(d)
<link rel="enclosure" type="audio/mpeg" href="http://example.com/
file.mp3">
<link rel="alternate" type="application/ogg" href="http://
example2.com/file.ogg" />
</link>
I'm not completely sure yet, but I'm quite partial to this approach.
My only suggestion would be using rel="enclosure" on the inner links
rather than "alternate". There will be some Atom processors [1] that
won't be able to tell the difference between an inner link and an
outer link. If they're both marked as enclosures it won't really
matter (you lose the benefits, but no worse than normal). However,
interpreting the inner link as an "alternate" to the atom entry could
be bad.
If you combine this with the requirement that an inner link with the
same type and hreflang as the outer link must be bit-for-bit
identical, we could cover the other use-case of multiple download
sources. So far, no new elements or attributes necessary. Not sure
about the legality.
Regards
James
[1] http://philringnalda.com/blog/2005/06/ms_embraces_rss.php
