[syndication] <link> vs <source>

[Dan Lyke <danlyke@flutterby.com>]

Julian Bond writes:
> Without going into a lot of reasons why, my vote is firmly with the de
> facto standard which is to use <link> for the permalink of the item.
> That is the URL of the html representation of the item, not an arbitrary
> link in the text of the item.

I really don't care which way this goes, 'cause I've tried to
understand the point of the various aggregators and I just don't get
it, but it does affect the publishing of my RDF. Given the two ways
I've seen people use mine, I think they'd prefer the outside link, but
I'm also one of the folks who thinks encoding HTML in the XML is gross
so I'm liable to notice mainly those who use my RSS file in ways that
reinforce my prejudices.

That said, do users really just want what, at that point, essentially
becomes a "perma link" in that field?

If so, I'll change my generation, but when a CMS does a fairly good
job of identifying the primary link in the entry (as I think mine
does), I can't imagine they'd want text that links to a different
version of the same text.

Dan