<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Kyle Marvin wrote:</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>I see the separation but I'm still missing a clear justifiication for it. I don't see content-type as having anything to do with the "audience". It's about what media format you'd get back if you dereference the href and rel is about how you can interpret/interact with it. I feel like the primary audience for content-type is likely to be used in selecting some type of parser when retrieving the resource. Orthogonal to this, the "rel" value assigns some semantic meaning to the resource (what does the entry or feed describe) and might also specify what interaction model you might expect via the href (ex. "edit" implies APP edit semantics on an entry resource).<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>+1 to what Kyle said</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>-- Ernie P.</DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>