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

[Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:37:06 +0100, Isofarro <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

No.  @title is always optional; its presence or absence has no
additional semantics.

If we feel there is a need to distinguish between "the primary
external resource (which is possibly being commented on in the summary
or content of the entry)" and "other resources related to this entry",
then we should invent a new rel value to distinguish them.

Cheers,
-Mark