James M Snell
jasnell at gmail.com
Fri Dec 1 11:25:36 PST 2006
You're right that the differentiation in the content-type is of less
importance but without it there's no way for me to unambiguously
indicate that a resource has both an Atom Feed representation and an
Atom Entry representation. The best I could do is say "This things has
two Atom representations". Keep in mind that I want to be able to
differentiate the types of alternate representations available without
having to look at any of the other rel keywords.
Kyle Marvin wrote:
> 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).
More information about the whatwg