* Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-20 01:50]:
>On 20/1/06 10:10 AM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And someone else still uses Atom in yet another clever way.
>
>Which is precisely why [EMAIL PROTECTED]"alternate",@type="atom+xml"]
>is an *ambiguous* way of discovering atom Feeds ...
And why `rel="feed"` will not disambiguate them.
>> It¹s just impossible to specify enough precise semantics to
>> cover everyone¹s use cases, and no single app will ever
>> understand all of these disparate semantics.
>
>Strawman. I'm not suggesting we pre-define all these other
>cases. I'm suggesting we define this one case (here is a feed
>document related to this page) in a manner which distinguishes
>it from other [undefined] cases.
No, you misunderstood the argument. I’m wondering why the one
case you want defined stands out over the many other possible
cases such that a definition for it is urgent, even though the
way you propose to define it would require the same sort of
effort all over for the next use case.
You’re asking for a semantically broken definition that fixes
one use case without providing any value for any other use case.
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 22:05]:
>This is a general limitation of the media type definition, not
>with the autodiscovery draft. We have the same problem
>differentiating <atom:link type="application/atom+xml"
>href="..." />. This isn't a problem that the autodiscovery
>draft needs to solve.
+1
* Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-20 04:00]:
>If we were to change something, one way to disambiguate feeds
>from entries would be to add a parameter to the mime-type:
>
> application/atom+xml; doc=entry
+1
Yes, that would be the correct place to fix this.
In fact, thinking about it, it seems like it would be the correct
place to put the profile information I was talking about in
another message:
application/atom+xml;profile=http://example.org/ns/webservices/
* Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-20 04:15]:
>Are the comments on the same html page, or on another page? Some
>websites do it the latter way. It often depends on the size of
>the article, especially if the article is split into multiple
>pages (eg.
><http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/12/07/catching-up-with-the-atom-publishing-pr
>otocol.html> ).
>
>In the first use case, it would make sense to have
>@rel="alternate feed replies" (it's an alternate representation
>of the page, it's a feed of updates of this page, and it's a
>resource containing replies to this page).
>
>In the latter case however @rel="alternate feed replies" would
>be broken. The replies are not on that page, so how is a feed of
>replies an alternative representation? It would make sense to
>have @rel="related feed replies" though.
Noone has explained to me so far how “the target of this link is
a feed” constitutes a relationship of the linking page with the
link target.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
