On 20/1/06 12:32 PM, "Joe Gregorio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Phil Ringnalda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Though at this point in this discussion, someone is always duty-bound
>> to point out that the only use of <link> that HTML actually specifies,
>> for stylesheets, treats them as not orthogonal ("alternate stylesheet"
>> is not "alternate" and a "stylesheet", it's an
>> "alternate-stylesheet"), and further assigns meaning to the presence
>> (though not, exactly, the content) of a title attribute.
>
> Marvelous.
Yeah, awful.
> Are you suggesting we promulgate that behaviour in
> the face of autodiscovery for RSS that already uses
> "alternate"?
Speaking for myself, quite the opposite.
Robert Sayre is the only one so far suggesting that @rel="alternate entry"
should be treated as excluding the semantic of @rel="alternate". Which is
surprising: I would have bet he would consider the "alternate stylesheet"
thing an abomination.
I'm suggesting that if we want to link to a resource which is considered to
be a feed for the current document we use "feed". If we want to link to a
resource which is considered to be an alternate representation of the
current document we use "alternate". If the resource is considered to be
both, then the x/html spec allows both relationships to be expressed in the
one <link> as a space separated list.
Specifying "feed" does not rule out using "alternate feed" for backwards
incompatibility purposes, except to those implementations that can't cope
with more than one value in @rel, and according to the autodisco 1.0 spec
they are broken anyways so I have no compassion for them.
e.
