* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 23:05]: > 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.
I like it. I’d prefer to eliminate the one contra you listed by using an extension element for this purpose (as always, nested into the link.) Of course, that means need a namespace… It’s a good solution to the bikeshed of naming the relationship, and it keeps the information about the entry being replied to and its source coupled together. With a plain old @rel value, you can’t tell which ones belong together in an entry with several links of both kinds. So far I can’t really make up my mind on any one solution, but this one seems the most correct, all else considered. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
