Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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).
I raised a similar issue regarding James Snell's Feed Rank I-D where a
ranking:scheme element has an @id attribute containing a IRI. In this
case the attribute is not used as a reference to another element,
though, but as an identifier of the ranking:scheme itself. (ranking:rank
elements refer to ranking:schemes via a @scheme attribute, which
contains the identifying IRI in question.)
In this case I think the analogy with atom:entry or atom:feed is
justified, so one conceivably could have something like the following:
<ranking:scheme ...>
<ranking:id>http://example.org/five-stars</ranking:scheme>
</ranking:scheme>
(In a mail James Snell proposed changing @id to @name, instead.)
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.
But the issue raised by the OP is subtly different from the Feed Rank
one, since the Feed Rank I-D uses @id to label a ranking:scheme, whereas
the Feed Thread I-D uses @id to link to an atom:entry. In the latter
case the analogy to atom:id is IMHO unjustified, since atom:id serves as
a label, not a link.
@ref, however, sounds like an entirely reasonable name for such an
attribute.
Just my 2 Zorkmids.
Andreas Sewe
