* Brian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-29 16:25]: > "related" should be used when you need to store a link for some > reason and you don't care if/how it is exposed to any users > along the way. Basically, rel="related" should almost never be > used. If you need the UA to display some links to the user then > you should put those links in the atom:content using (X)HTML > markup to guarentee (as much as possible) that they show up > (since not all Uas expose "related" links). If you don't want > the UA to display the link then you should use something other > than rel="related" because some UA's will expose all "related" > links.
Disagree. If you want to make absolutely sure the user sees it, then it needs to be in atom:content, agreed. (Even putting it in atom:summary jeopardises its visibility.) But putting it in a `related` link allows Atom processors to find these links without wading into the content at all, much like the concept of putting information into the header vs the body of an HTTP message. It also makes it possible to add links to entries whose content is not even hypermedia – images, f.ex. So I’ll say that you should not *rely* on `related` links, but you most certainly should use them. The fact that user agents currently do not expose them is a chicken/egg situation. Few user agents expose them because few such links are ever included in feeds, and few such links are ever included in feeds because few user agents expose them. But there is a strong predisposition in the weblog feed arena due to the fact that RSS was there first, and user agents tend to see the world as a variation on RSS, which has a much poorer model. The adoption of Atom by other community in fact presents another chance for uptake of elsewhere-ignored aspects of the format. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
