I agree. I'd much rather avoid introducing a new namespace for this
tho. Nested link elements if just fine I think
<link rel="in-reply-to" href="...">
<link rel="source" href="..." />
</link>
Using source in this context I think avoids the potential confusion had
the link appeared without nesting.
The fact that it solves the problem of associating a single in-reply-to
to a single source location is an added bonus.
Definitely works for me.
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* 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,
