On 31/7/07 3:15 PM, "John Panzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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) First reaction: "D'oh! of course." but ... on reading the referenced documentation ... hmmm ... is the referenced link an entry-point to the resource ... depends on what is meant by "the resource" ... which I'm reading as being the entry resource, not the thing the entry is referencing ... so probably no. I think of rel="bookmark" for "the link which is recorded when I hit the bookmark-this-thing-right-here function" ... which would be the bookmark for the entry, not the referenced resource. For example, on del.icio.us I might have [1] in my collection, which can be seen at [2] and also [3]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/selector.html#id-selectors [2] http://del.icio.us/url/6bf832bf7d20edc9cd6a6f7ab98fdeb1 [3] http://del.icio.us/ironclad?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FREC-CSS2%2Fse lector.html%23id-selectors&jump=no When I'm at del.icio.us, I'd expect rel=bookmark for both [2] and [3] to link to [2]. When I follow the link to the referent (ie. to w3c), then I'd expect rel=bookmark *there* to point to either [4] or even possibly [5] (and of course it could point to both, with appropriate @title to disambiguate) [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/selector.html [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/cover.html#minitoc (it couldn't very well point to [1], since it's a document level piece of metadata, not fragment level -- the syntax just isn't available to do that) Also, not so sure it would be appropriate for my essay use case example either: >> 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. e.
