Re: [whatwg] HTML5 Edit Link Relation (was: PaceEntryMediatype)
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Martin Atkins wrote: > > What would be useful, though perhaps out of scope for HTML5, is a way to > specify a *protocol*, rather than a response type, for a given link > relation. Then you could specify that this is an AtomAPI endpoint, > rather than that a GET request will return an atom+xml document. Would it make sense to use rel="" for this? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] HTML5 Edit Link Relation (was: PaceEntryMediatype)
Robert Sayre wrote: While "type" is useful for things which result in GET requests, while specifying several locally-relevant protocols I've run into the fact that it's not so hot for anything that requires the client to include an entity body in the request, or requires any other request protocol. What would be useful, though perhaps out of scope for HTML5, is a way to specify a *protocol*, rather than a response type, for a given link relation. Then you could specify that this is an AtomAPI endpoint, rather than that a GET request will return an atom+xml document.
Re: [whatwg] HTML5 Edit Link Relation (was: PaceEntryMediatype)
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote: > >type="application/atom+xml" > href="entry.xml" /> > > I think this would be a great thing to standardize in the WHAT-WG. See http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#other ...for instructions on registering types for HTML5. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
[whatwg] HTML5 Edit Link Relation (was: PaceEntryMediatype)
On 12/1/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What is the purpose of using alternate links? What is a UA supposed to do with 'em? Why did I as a content publisher choose to use the "alternate" link relation? Are all of these links of equal value to all UA's? Are they all expected to be processed in the same basic way? Should an "archive" feed be treated the same way as a "subscription" feed? Excellent point. HTML has link relations for this purpose. The list is open, so you don't you really need to have a standard, but I suppose putting them in Web Applications 1.0 would be a good idea. I think this would be a great thing to standardize in the WHAT-WG. -- Robert Sayre
