On 20/1/06 5:13 AM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we already have a name for doing that: it¹s called ³linking
> to something.² Now, it¹d be useful to encourage people to add
> `type` attributes to their `<a>` links, so tools could find them
> just by looking at the page without spidering. But `rel` does not
> add any information.
Here is a link to a resource:
<link type="application/atom+xml" href="..." />
Please explain how a tool can decide whether that is a link to a <atom:feed>
document, or is a link to an <atom:entry> document?
> In fact, semantically, we should be encouraging people to move
> things out of their `<link>`s and into `<a>`s in the page.
Sounds like PaceAnchorSupport. How do you propose we do this encouragement,
if not by codifying it into a spec?
On 20/1/06 4:05 AM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The spec is extremely well-written and reflects existing behavior.
The existing behaviour is based on the various incarnations of RSS where the
only document type involved are feeds. RFC 4287 introduces a new document
type, the Atom Entry Document, which autodiscovery-01 fails to take into
consideration. That doesn't meet my definition of "well-written".
e.
