James M Snell wrote:
I've updated the various extension drafts to point to RFC4287.
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'm moving the feed rank draft the "stable" status.. meaning that
changes are unlikely between now and when I submit the draft as a
standards-track RFC (which will be after APP is complete).
There is a new draft that defines a "transitional atom" format. The
t-atom format is usable during the production lifecycle of Atom
entries; as such certain requirements from core Atom are relaxed (e.g.
atom:id is optional, etc).
Works in progress:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-link-extensions-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-transitional-atom-00.txt
Last call:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-03.txt
In this draft I noticed:
<thr:in-reply-to
id="tag:entries.com,2005:1" href="#"/>
as an entry that is a "reply-to" for another entry in the same feed.
Why wouldn't we just have:
<thr:in-reply-to id="tag:entries.com,2005:1"/>
and make the 'href' attribute implied to be the current feed?
It just feels much more simply to omit the href. Certainly, a value of
'#' should
affect the threading in the same way.
--Alex Milowski
