I’m working on some new KML resources and, just as I try to do for my HTML, I want to at least attempt to get it to validate against an official specification. For KML, this means the OGC KML specification.
These resources will be single-feature, and will each be related to exactly one HTML representation of the same feature. Now, it seems logical to me that I would specify an atom:link with rel="alternate" inside of these KML files, either at the Document level or perhaps at the Placemark level.
Unfortunately, from section 9.1.3.5.1 of the official OGC KML specification:
The atom:link rel attribute shall be present and its value shall be related.
What the heck? I’m not an XML guy by any means, but I think this means that the best I can do is specify a "I think I met that guy in a bar a couple years ago" kind of relationship, when what I really want is something more like "hey, that’s me in a dress shirt."
Now, if I’m right, the question is: do I exclude the atom:link element from my KML, do I include the element and settle for a generic relationship, or do I intentionally break compliance with the OGC specification. Tough choice.
-J
Not only generic relationship, but the wrong relationship. Interestingly, the KML reference on Google Code leaves atom:link propertly open. Section 9.1.3.5.1 is wrong.