* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 18:10]: > Yeah, source is likely the most logical choice, but I didn't > want to confuse folks with a link @rel="source" that has a > different meaning from atom:source.
An argument by way of which I came around to Antone’s suggested “start-of-thread,” though I was going to suggest “thread-start.” But then I thought, we already use mail header lingo with “in-reply-to;” why not borrow another term from there and call it “references?” Yes, I know it’s not the same as the References: header. But the ultimate purpose (to trace the thread in newsreaders) is kind of similar, and more importantly, the term seems to fit the sort of relationship we’re trying to describe quite closely. If this is deemed a poor choice, then I fall back to “thread-start.” Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
