Re: "up" relation, was: Fwd: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hmm. That section would merely be a verbatim repeat of the registry, 
> since by definition there isn't any more information to add.

That may be true for "up", but doesn't seem to be the case for 
"payment", for instance.

> How about adding a note to each of them to indicate it's grandfathered 
> in? E.g.,
> 
>   Notes: this relation pre-exists this specification, and did not 
> indicate a reference.
> ...

That is a true statement, but by removing the old registry the 
information that *is* present over there will be lost -- so I think it 
should be preserved *somewhere*.

BR, Julian