A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Hmm. That’s a nice thought that hadn’t occured to me. Thinking
about it, that would offer a way to solve a lot of the mess that
currently plagues the Trackback/Pingback mechanisms. You could
just ping the target weblog with a pointer to the feed which
contains the entry you wrote in response to someone else’s post.
See also below, in reply to Thomas Broyer, on @rel='related'.
Yep tho I really don't want to bring trackback/pingback into this
discussion ;-) This mechanism would make it easier to connect
conversations on the client without necessarily worrying about server
infrastructure for trackbacks, pings, etc.
It also occurs to me that just like in email (examine the
specimen you’re just reading, f.ex.), there’s nothing that
precludes an entry from having *multiple* @rel='in-reply-to'
links, although in practice this will be rare. Or at least
newsreaders will probably not support it well (like mailers
don’t, even when they thread messages and can send replies to
multiple messages at once – mutt, which I’m sending this message
with, being a fine example), which dooms it to be a rare
situation, anyway. But there’s no particular reason to confine
conversations to trees rather than allowing full directed graphs,
and so long as aggregators are aware that they MAY encounter
multiple backreferences, it’s probably fine for them to do the
same as threading mailers: pick one of the backreferences for the
purpose of threading and ignore the others.
+1. There's no need to constrain this but I agree that this is
definitely an edge case
Question: could the @rel="comments" link be handled
appropriately using the existing @rel="related"? The question
hinges on whether or not it is semantically important to
distinguish "comments" from other types of related entities.
I'm not convinced it is.
You have a point… hmm…
@rel='comments' does seem to stem from an arbitrary narrow world
view: it’s kind of stupid unless we are going to specify that the
referenced feed MUST contain ONLY comments – because what if
someone points to a feed which contains unrelated entries? No
harm would be done anyway (most probably, the aggregator would
ignore anything in the purported comment feed that’s not a
comment linked to things in the main feed), but as a description
of the relationship “comments” would be silly.
@rel="related-feed" ??? A bit more specific than "related", the nature
of the relation is left unspecified. User agents can choose to handle
in whatever way they wish.
Maybe it should be @rel='has-comments'? Or am I splitting hairs
now?
Splitting hairs I think.
* Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-13 00:00]:
As an atom:id is an identifier that might (should?) not be
"dereferenceable", atom:link is not a good choice.
There is nothing in the spec that forbids atom:link from being
dereferencable, nor anything that advises against it being so.
See 4.2.6 and 4.2.6.1 in -09.
This was my interpretation also. I vote for a liberal interpretation as
well.
Your entry should also link to a representation of the
"commented resource" using an atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"related"].
I really like this! That would give aggregators the chance to do
something sensible when an entry shows up in a feed which is
in-reply-to an entry in another feed which the particular
aggregator does not subscribe.
+1 this is good
- James
