2007/7/31, Teo Hui Ming: > > But my concern is, can we safely link to any document using atom:link > (regardless of @rel), just as we can with html:a and html:link, thus > are "normal links" [1]. > > -OR- > > @rel may imply certain meaning on relationship (e.g. ownership) > between documents that authors/implementers must be careful about. If > yes, it seems necessary to make it clear.
atom:link/@rel has the exact same implications as html:link/@rel / html:a/@rel. The only difference with HTML is that in Atom there is *always* a 'rel' value (someone might argue that in HTML, when there is no @rel on an html:link or html:a, you can make it default to rel="related"). > and atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED], should we treat it as normal / embedded [2] ? > > [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkLaw.html#Normal > [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkLaw.html#Embedded Embedded, as Eric said. Hence the @src vs. @href > > [..] 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. > > A new precise relation type is fine for new systems. But existing feed > readers prefer the first alternate atom:link in feed entry. If service > implementers need to compromise, at least they know it's okay to do > so. Which is why, I think, the question above is important. > > > Thanks, > -- > Teo Hui Ming > > -- Thomas Broyer
