prabhaka at apple.com
Fri Dec 1 11:35:12 PST 2006
On Dec 1, 2006, at 11:25 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> 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
> 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.
I understand that this is *what* you want, but I'm still unclear "why."
From where I sit, Kyle's argument makes sense: keep the syntax in
content-type, and the semantics in rel-type. This seems both simpler
and more consistent with how the web works today. No? Or is there
some overriding reason for ignoring rel-type?
-- Ernie P.
More information about the whatwg