On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:07 PM, James M Snell <[email protected]> wrote: > > As the author of 4685 I'm a bit biased but I'm not sure I see the need for > the new rel attribute. in-reply-to would seem to cover the need well enough. >
Just a thought in favor of in-reply-to:. The "source" attribute could be quite useful. Per RFC 4685: """ The "source" attribute MAY be used to specify the IRI [RFC3987] of an Atom Feed or Entry Document containing an atom:entry with an atom:id value equal to the value of the "ref" attribute. """ Seems to me that a client might be aware of a finite set of "sources": YouTube, Digg, etc., and thus would be able to decide which in-reply-to elements it would like to process. --peter > - James > > Bill de hOra wrote: >> >> Antone Roundy wrote: >>> >>> Martin Atkins wrote: >>>> >>>> I suppose the general case is that when the user adds additional >>>> metadata their entry becomes a pointer to the original item rather than the >>>> item itself, so the id (and everything else, for that matter) is different >>>> in this case. >>> >>> That makes sense to me. >> >> Me too. >> >> The atom:source element isn't designed to capture that idea, so we're >> looking at something along the lines of thr:in-reply-to or a new rel >> attribute. >> >> Bill >> >> > >
