On 11/12/06 2:26 PM, "Joe Gregorio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adding an optional parameter that indicated an entry or > a feed would be a more elegant solution: > > application/atom+xml;type=entry > application/atom+xml;type=feed I certainly agree it would be more elegant. A more pragmatic solution would be to go with "application/atom.entry+xml" ... if WHATWG don't update their spec, we're safe; if anyone has implemented per the current draft WHATWG spec, we're safe; if any implementations use naïve string matching, we're safe. The only danger is if someone has implemented APP per the moving target which is Draft-[n++] ... they should revise their test implementations as the draft updates, and certainly update once it reaches RFC status, so no sympathies there. e.
