Re: rel="discuss"

[Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxxxxx>]

* Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-05-09 23:50]:
> From the definition in RFC 4287 I would say that "related" is
> intended for static resources that provide connected/associated
> information, such as background data, additional content of
> interest, etc.

Disagree.

> Granted, the definition "identifies a resource related to the
> resource described by the containing element" is somewhat
> circular, but it doesn't quite capture what I had in mind for
> "discuss".

You are reading too much into it. Basically `related` has no real
relation semantics at all. It’s pretty much the same thing as an
HTML `<a>` tag: a link you can follow that’s there because
someone deemed it relevant.

> I think a link of type "discuss" would identify a venue where
> multiple people can exchange messages about (i.e., engage in a
> discussion or conversation about) the resource. Such a
> conversation could take place via email, Internet Relay Chat,
> XMPP groupchat, MSRP groupchat, web forum, voice or video
> conference, or whatever other technologies people come up with
> for social interaction and discussion over the Internet. The
> use case is that you don't just want to find related content,
> you want to actively engage in a conversation about the topic.
> This is different from "related" because a conversation happens
> at the link, and it is different from "comments" because you're
> not following a feed of comments on the entry but instead
> engaging in a conversation. So perhaps "conversation" would be
> better than "discuss", but be that as it may I think these use
> cases (multi-party interaction, not reading a static resource
> or following comments made by others) are sufficiently
> different to justify definition of a new link relation.

Modulo my disagreement about what `related` means, you still
haven’t answered James’ question:

> On 05/09/2008 3:07 PM, James Holderness wrote:
> > Why would a client need to be able to differentiate a
> > "discuss" link from any other link type?

Specifically I assume that all of the protocols you indicate
above have URI schemes that clearly identify their URIs as names
for places where users can converse, and if you wanted to use
them in an HTML document you’d put them in an `<a>` tag without
thinking twice about it. And on systems with the respective chat
software installed, browsers would indeed do something useful
with such links without need for a `<chat>` tag or some such.

So why do you need more in the context of XMPP sessions?

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