* Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 20:15]: >2006/3/16, Sylvain Hellegouarch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Atom sets the atom:id value not as in an attribute of atom:id >> but as its content. Why not following the convention in the >> first place? > >Because they don't deserve the same role. atom:id gives the >identifier of the resource _described_ by the containing >element, while thr:in-reply-to/@id gives the identifier of the >resource _referenced_ by the containing element (or, actually, >gives an identifier _as a reference_ to this resource). In that >sense, thr:in-reply-to deserves the same role as @href.
+1 * Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 17:40]: >2006/3/16, Sylvain Hellegouarch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I would rather move the content of that attribute as a text >> element of the 'in-reply-to' element (as does the atom:id >> element). > >Eventually, I'd rather rename it to resource-id… Considering the above-mentioned symmetry with @href, I’m coming around to whose-ever view it was that this attribute should be called @ref for balance. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
