RFC4287 section 4.2.7.2 specifies that "rel=alternate" is effectively
the default for the link element:
If the "rel" attribute is not present, the link
element MUST be interpreted as if the link relation type is
"alternate".
So having a plain `<link>` and a `<link rel="alternate">` is kind of
weird, *especially* if they point to different resources. So we just
remove the plain entry and *replace* it with the rel=alternate, which
is really the default here.
The sample Atom feeds in RFC4287 (section 1.1) do give an
example *only* with `rel="alternate"`:
<entry>
<title>Atom draft-07 snapshot</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html"
href="http://example.org/2005/04/02/atom"/>
<link rel="enclosure" type="audio/mpeg" length="1337"
href="http://example.org/audio/ph34r_my_podcast.mp3"/>
To refer to the actual Wallabag URL, we use the "via", which is
defined in the RFC as:
5. The value "via" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href
attribute identifies a resource that is the source of the
information provided in the containing element.
I'm not sure how widely used that tag is, but I feel that the
distinction between `rel="alternate"` is weird at best, and buggy (and
certainly introducing unpleasantness in my usage) at worse.
Before:
<link href="{{ entry.url }}"/>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html"
href="{{ url('view', {'id': entry.id}) }}"/>
<link rel="via"
href="{{ entry.url }}"/>
That is:
<link href="http://example.com/"/>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html"
href="http://wallabag.example.com/view/1"/>
<link rel="via"
href="http://example.com/"/>
After:
<link rel="alternate" href="{{ entry.url }}"/>
<link rel="via" type="text/html"
href="{{ url('view', {'id': entry.id}) }}"/>
That is:
<link rel="alternate" href="http://example.com"/>
<link rel="via" type="text/html"
href="http://wallabag.example.com/view/1"/>
Closes: #7848
