On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:14:54AM -0400, Bill Kearney wrote:
>
> Take comments from all interested parties and release guidelines? That's fine
> idea and precisely what's being done.
>
> Here's the spec:
>
> For sites wanting to offer a list of RSS feeds, use of the HTML
> <head> section <link> element should be considered.
Yes.
> Examples of which can resemble:
>
> <link rel='subscriptions' type='
http://purl.org/ocs/directory/0.5/#'
> href='
http://example.com/list.rdf'/>
> <link rel='subscriptions' type='text/opml'
href='
http://example.com/list.opml'/>
>
> Applications would be expected to understand the use of the 'rel'
> attribute as an indicator of the link's purpose and the 'type'
> attribute as the format being used. This to facilitate decision
> making on the suitability of the document before the data is
> downloaded. This to avoid burdening the requester with downloading
> data in a format it doesn't understand.
No argument there.
> I'm open to discussion the specific text of the 'rel' attribute and
> the range of 'type' formats. I'd think using a URI would be smarter
> in the long run. But I'm open to using MIME types when none exists.
> Of course then there's also the failure to apply for a legitimate
> MIME type but that's a whole other train wreck...
I have no preference on the <link> representation. As long as there's
a standard and sensible way to do it, that's all we need. (I don't
claim to know how to judge what's sensible in this arena.)
Jeremy
--
Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo!
<
Jeremy@...> |
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email