Noah Slater wrote: > ... > Indeed, why are these being redefined at all? > > Why not point to the IANA link relations registry, and leave it at that? > ... Because the registry is being replaced; and the new registry has a policy of "specification required" (IMHO). > ... >> as the new registry procedure clearly says "specification required". > > Which registry procedure? > ... <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06#section-6.2>. >> One way to achieve this would be to have a new chapter that takes over >> that role, and specified those 4 link relations which currently have no >> specification (maybe including the details that were present in the >> original link relation registry). > > Why not defer to the IANA link relations registry? Again, the Atom link relations registry is getting replaced by a new registry. BR, JulianReceived on Sunday, 19 July 2009 15:53:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:39 GMT