> David House wrote: > > 2) Atom support isn't there. Firefox and Konqueror (the browsers I > > tested in) get scared off by Atom's mime type and prompt the user to > > download it. They don't recognise it as XML, so they don't transform > > it. We have two options here: give up or serve as text/xml (I guess > > the latter won't be too popular). Really, browsers should recognise > > application/atom+xml as something they can parse as XML and do so.
Why should Atom be "parsed as XML" by browsers? If people fear that users come onto their site through a search engine and arrive on an Atom feed, so they want their feeds to be shown in the browser (in a fancy way if possible) so that users won't be feared and go away (and if possible click on a link to lead them to the site's browser-dedicated pages); those people should just use a rel=nofollow" on the "direct links" to their feeds. So I'd say: - <link rel="whatever" type="application/atom+xml; type=feed" />* in the page header for autodiscovery - eventually <a rel="nofollow"></a> in the page body to allow users to more easily subscribe in external readers (either via mime-type dispatching or "copy link address"/paste) And, follow those guidelines: http://www.scottfrancis.com/blog/2006/01/21/ui-updates/ * oops, sorry, there's no "type" parameter to the application/atom+xml type… so let's say <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" /> -- Thomas Broyer
