* Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-11 07:40]: > Of course it's "related". All links in an entry point to > related resources, that's the very definition of a link. We > also know what the nature of the relationship is (it's in reply > to that resource), so it doesn't hurt to specify that.
I’m neutral on this one – can’t hurt, though I don’t think it’s really required either. The point of using "related" is simply to expose the URL in a commonly understood location for consumers which do not know to look for it in an extension element’s attribute. > James -- any chance of defining that in the comments draft, > alongside the 'replies' link relation. You could then simplify > the thr:in-reply-to element to just needing to handle the > thr:idref case. +0.5. If @rel='in-reply-to' is specified, there’s little point to also having thr:in-reply-to/@href. I have no strong opinion on this one either, though. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
