Subject: Re: Comments Draft

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:23:58 +0200

* Eric Scheid <[email-masked]> [2005-08-06 05:40]:
> either that or a flag that says "this is dereferenceable", but
> that is ugly and doesn't let the publisher have a link with
> both.
> 
> would it be useful? google does interesting things by crawling
> links, so do many other link crawling tools.

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

Putting the non-dereferencable bit in an @idref wouldn’t be all
that interesting anyway, I think, unless the crawler knows how to
interpret it. But if it has specific knowledge about @idref
values in particular relationships, it may as well have specific
knowledge about particular extension elements. So that base is
covered as well in either case.

So in conclusion, there’s no advantage to using atom:link as the
principal vehicle for IDs here either. Seems like a trend… it’s
getting very clear to me that an extension element really is The
Right Choice for this thing.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>