On 1/19/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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". > > I don't know how that is relevant. I am trying to think of a > scenario where I'd want to autodiscover an entry document (as > opposed to simply linking to it) and the inability to distinguish > between feed and entry documents is causing a problem, but I > can't come up with anything. Can you provide an example?
I have a weblog post. I would like aggregators to discover both the feed for comments (rel="alternate feed") and the feed for my weblog (rel="feed"), but I would like search engines and hypothetical Atom-aware browsers and Piggybank-style history miners to discover the Atom Entry document, where they can find just the entry for one-time fetching with no question about what they are getting (rel="alternate"). Of course, if we spec only things which include "feed" in the rel value as being appropriate for aggregators, and all others as not, we still would need to wait three or four years for existing use of "alternate" alone to die down before any aggregator developer would consider following along and ignoring non-"feed"s. Phil Ringnalda
