Why wouldn't this work?
rel="alternate feed"
rel="alternate entry"
rel="alternate replies" (see [1])
[1]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-03.txt
Phil Ringnalda wrote:
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
