* David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-13 00:15]:
> This seems to be the wrong priority to me.
Convincing arguments, IMHO; +1.
James:
As regards Robert’s vociferous comments, you have to acknowledge
that while the rest of the draft was hashed out in several
iterations, these `thr:count` and `thr:when` things snuck in at a
late stage without any discussion.
And, as regards David’s stance, I think it warrants a reminder
that `thr:in-reply-to` started life as as an `in-reply-to` link
relation as well, but we moved away from that because all of our
attempts to twist Atom links into carrying all the additional
semantics we needed ended up looking funny.
So I would argue that the same appears to be a good idea for the
`replies` relation since it grew beyond the scope of Atom links.
I would even argue that what we are seeing here are really the
first observed instances of a general best practice pattern for
Atom extensions:
Trying to extend `atom:link` is bad. If you need more
semantics than afforded to it by RFC 4287, you should
clone it and tweak the copy.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
