Subject: Re: Comments Draft

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:27:08 +1000

On 11/8/05 3:20 PM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As long as producers throw in atom:link[@rel='related'] pointers
> to the source as well, that base is covered anyway.

I'd prefer to see atom:link[@rel="in-reply-to"].

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.

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.

e.

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:02:49 -0700

I *really* don't want to get into a protracted debate that gets us going 
back and forth between atom:link[@rel="in-reply-to"] and thr:in-reply-to 
when either approach would work just as well as the other.  The 
thr:in-reply-to tends to make the most sense to me at this point because 
of the need to a) do ID refs and b) identify the source of a link as a 
part of the link itself ... both of which *could* be done with atom:link 
but only with a bit of massaging and a namespace extension (to introduce 
idref).  Since either solution requires namespace extensions to be 
added, thr:in-reply-to is likely the better option (IMHO).

What I will say is that it is rather unfortunate that Link wasn't 
conceptualized the way the Author, Date and Text constructs were.  If 
there had been a Link construct in the spec that defined a common base 
for Link oriented elements, it would have made it very simple for me to 
do something akin to the following:

atomLink {
  atomCommonAttributes,
  attribute href {URI}?,
  attribute idref {URI}?,
  attribute title {text}?,
  attribute hreflang {text}?,
}

inReplyTo = element thr:in-reply-to { atomLink }

Ah well...

- James

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:23:22 +0200

* Eric Scheid <[email-masked]> [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/>