How about "alternate" be recommended for only true substitutes; a feed for comments or pictures should not be labelled "alternate", as it is not a substitute. "feed" is appealing, but does fly in the face of practice.
There are existing rel values that could apply to qualify other kinds of feeds, or we could suggest new ones.
eg, if it is an titles-only feed, rel="contents" would apply
If you had both full-content and summary feeds available, this could be indicated in a machine readable way (I appreciate that Atom handles this properly within the format, unlike RSS, but offering both versions is something I see many sites doing).
I am amazed that there was no rel="summary" defined by the w3c; this would be a useful extension to consider.
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/types.html#type-links
On May 3, 2005, at 10:29 PM, fantasai wrote:
Arve Bersvendsen wrote:On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:52:59 +0200, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.txt
1) Change the attribute value for the rel from "alternate" to "feed", or some similar wording. A feed is not always an alternate of the HTML document in which it occurs.
As I mentioned last November [1] I agree with not requiring the 'alternate' rel value for the reasons stated in http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2004/linking-feeds/ Briefly, it is an abuse of its semantics because many feed links are not links to alternate representations of the current page.
[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11705.html
~fantasai
