On Wednesday, December 06, 2006, at 08:30PM, "Antone Roundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Dec 6, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote: >> >> I'd say: stick with the one media type that is currently there - >> there is no problem, just misconception about what it means to >> subscribe. > >A few reasons why a user agent might want to be able to tell the >difference between a link to a feed and a link to an entry beforehand >is in order to:
But that is an issue of linking semantics, not link target media types. I'd expect the user agent to look for links with 'here is a feed' semantics instead of looking for (arbitrary) links to certain media types. IMHO, there is something going wrong somewhere - and it ain't the media type. Jan > >1) be able to ignore the link to the entry (ie. not present it to the >user) if the user agent doesn't handle entry documents (rather than >presenting it as a "subscribe" link, only to have to say "sorry, it's >not a feed" after the user tries to subscribe). > >2) be able to say "subscribe" to links to feeds, and "monitor" links >to entries (the user may not be interested in monitoring a single >entry for changes--if they can't tell that that's what the link is >for, they may end up needlessly doing so but think that they've added >another feed to their subscription list). > > > >
