James Holderness wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
The feed thread draft is a major update that includes a simplification
of the in-reply-to element.
<in-reply-to
id="tag:example.org,2005:some-unique-id"
href="http://example.com/some-location"; />
I really like what you've done with this. I have a couple of questions
though.
What is the type of the resource pointed to by the in-reply-to href? It
It's whatever type the server says it is when you GET it (Content-Type
header).
seems to me it can't be an Atom feed since that isn't really a
representation of the resource being responded to (although that would
probably be most useful here). An Atom entry document? An HTML web page?
What would you expect a client application to do with this value? A link
to the source feed I could see myself using (in combination with the id
obviously), but I'm not sure about the other two.
Most likely it will end up being the source feed. The idea was to leave
this un(der)specified for now and let implementors figure out what works
best.
Second question: what is the reason for recommending a related link when
the href points to something external? It seems to me an unnecessary
duplication of information but I may be missing something. And once
again what would you expect the client to do with it? A HTML page could
be provided to the user as a clickable link, but an Atom feed? An Atom
entry document? Obviously the answer to this depends on the type of the
href, which brings us back to initial question.
The related link allows clients that are not familiar with the Feed
Thread extension to at least be able to indicate that there is some kind
of relationship between the two resources.
- James
