On Saturday, July 30, 2005, at 02:38 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* 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.”
I took a look at the draft to verify whether I correctly understood
what this link points to, and I think it isn't what I originally
thought based on the old name "root". Does this point to the feed in
which the immediate parent entry was found, or to the feed in which the
first entry in a thread of replies was found? If the former, which the
draft seems to suggest, and which seems more useful, then
"start-of-thread" and "thread-start" probably aren't such good names
after all. With clarity in mind, "in-reply-to-feed" might be good,
though it's a bit long.
And problem comes to mind: if you have multiple "in-reply-to" links,
how do you related those to their respective "in-reply-to-feed" links
(in case they're different)? Is it possible? Dare we do something
like this? (Wish we to if we dare?)
<link rel="in-reply-to" ...>
<link rel="in-reply-to-feed" ... />
</link>
Pro:
* Groups the two links together
* Gives us more options for what to call the inside one without
creating confusion: "source-feed", for example. It would be nice to
choose a name that's not likely to be the perfect name for some other
use, or to define this @rel value broadly enough to be applicable to
other purposes.
Con:
* Puts an atom:link in a location not expected by apps that don't
understand this extension.
