Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 05/28/2008 4:02 PM, James Holderness wrote:
I'm strongly opposed to any link rel proposal that has no potential
client implementation, or where the implementation would be the same as
existing link relationships.
I don't think it's the same at all, but I seem to be beating my head
against the wall attempting to explain why. Everyone I've talked to in
the social networking and real-time communication spaces gets the
concept of rel='discuss' immediately, but folks here just don't.
Therefore I will attempt to socialize the idea in other venues (e.g.,
some of the RAI lists) and see what folks there think.
What you need is a sample document, where there is both a related and a
discuss link. Then we can look at it and work through it. If software
isn't going to do anything more with a discuss link than a relation link
(eg display it), it isn't needed. Or maybe it is.
I think one reason you're not getting traction here is that people here
are implicitly concerned about a proliferation of rel types. It's not
neccessarily a given that having a lot of them is a good thing for Atom
consumers. Also we don't have the culture of feature addition and
extension that XMPP does (that is an observation, not a judgment on
either set of standards)
Bill
