Re: [LinkLog] flaw in the link rel="related" clarified

[Isofarro <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Isofarro wrote:

> As I understand it, the link rel="alternate" is an alternate representation of
> the current entry - which is a comment about a resource.
>
> The resource itself is identified in the link rel="related". Links which are
> related to this item are also listed with a link rel="related". How is the URI
> being discussed to be identified when there are multiple links of
> rel="related"?

I think Mark has clarified the above situation in his newest dive into 
xml column: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/06/16/dive.html

The link rel="related" has two uses:
1.) To identify the resource being commented on.
2.) To identify related resources to the resource being commented on.

As I understand it - from Mark's article - the requirement for 1.) does 
not need a @title on the link, because it will be the same as the title 
element of the entry.

If a link rel="related" has the optional @title attribute, we take that 
link as being a related link as defined in 2.).

I guess the assumption being made here is that if there's a 
rel="related" without a @title, that's the link being commented on.

Have I understood this right?

Thanks
Mike.