* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-25 06:30]: > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying > that one might do this if they want and alternate of a "next" > link? > > <link rel="next" xml:id="foo" ... /> > <link rel="alternate-enclosure" x:alternate-of="foo" ... />
No, not at all. > If that's what you mean, then sure, the code for that would be > the same as for: > > <link rel="next" xml:id="foo" ... /> > <link rel="alternate-link" x:alternate-of="foo" ... /> > > ...but it would sure look odd. I see no advantage to naming > these things in terms of enclosures. I am asking if is there a generic way for an application to implement alternate-link processing that gives sensible behaviour for any type of main link. If an implementor has to support alternative links explicitly for each type of main link, where’s the difference to having specific relationships for alternative links depending on the main link type? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
