Eric Scheid wrote:
On 31/7/07 12:34 PM, "Teo Hui Ming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quoted from http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19607.html
<entry>
<title>The Atom Syndication Format</title>
<summary>An alternative to RSS2.</summary>
<link href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287"/>
<category term="rfc"/>
</entry>
Linking to the RFC as an alternate representation of the entry suggests
that the entry and the RFC issue from the same source. (ie. if the
entry appears in a feed that lists me as an author it implies that
RFC4287 was written by me) -- Brendan Taylor
The author of that entry is Brendan. The author of the referenced document
is [whoever] ... but the conflict can be resolved if Brendan avoids linking
to the RFC as an "alternate" of his bookmark. It's not an alternate
representation of his bookmark, it's the full thing.
It's like if I wrote an essay on Shakespeare's "Romeo et Juliet" ... my
essay is not an alternate to the play, and vice versa, so there is no
conflict regarding which author to put on my entry.
So, don't use rel="alternate" (or the null expression which defaults to the
same value). Use some other relationship ... However, rel="related" doesn't
really communicate the relationship between the reference and the referent,
so I'm tempted to propose a new relationship. rel="referent" seems
appropriate.
How about rel="bookmark"?
(http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-bookmark)
