Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Martin Atkins <[email protected]> [2009-01-13 19:05]:
What are you referring to in RFC4685? (Atom Threading
Extensions)
The "replies" link relation? I'm not sure that it means what we
need for this use-case.
No, the `in-reply-to` element. It doesn’t sound like the link
relation was I thinking of at first glance but the definitions
are congruent. Even my proposal for how it could be usefully
displayed is essentially that of a thread. It’s kind of
embarrassing that I didn’t notice immediately.
(Nearly no one supports 4685, of course. But then neither do they
support the hypothetical link relation.)
It seems strange to use in-reply-to to represent a pointer to something.
To me, in-reply-to seems a specialized kind of pointer, not a general
pointer.
However, I'm willing to be convinced if you can explain your reasoning! :)
