W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:17:36 +1100
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F9B20AFB-0961-460D-B748-EBC187903233@mnot.net>
To: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>

Hmm. My inclination at this point is to allow the opensearch community  
to register it; this spec is already keeping a decent number of balls  
in the air.

Has there been discussion about submitting the next spec for  
publication as an RFC?

Cheers,



On 02/12/2008, at 5:55 AM, Paul Denning wrote:

>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/5vueqt
> [1] http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Autodiscovery_in_HTML.2FXHTML
>
> OpenSearch defines a "search" relation name.  Should your document  
> include an entry for "search" in section 6.2 for the initial  
> contents of the Link Relation Type Registry?
>
> - Relation Name:  search
> - Description:  Refers to a search description document
> - Reference: [2]
>
> [2] "this document" i.e., http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04
>
> (assuming this idea makes it into rev 04).
>
> Note that I did not say "OpenSearch" description document because I  
> can envision other content types (besides application/ 
> opensearchdescription+xml) that may become applicable to the  
> "search" relation name.
>
> One reason for putting "search" in your internet-draft rather than  
> wait to register it after the registry is established is to make it  
> clear that "search" should not be limited to OpenSearch descriptions.
>
> When the <link> element appears in HTML/XHTML in accordance with  
> [1], it also provides a @type attribute.  Your document also  
> supports "type" as a link-param.
>
> So perhaps an additional appendix can be written to essentially say  
> what I said above; the appendix can reference [1] as an example of a  
> search description document, but make it clear that the "search"  
> relation name should not be limited to OpenSearch.
>
> This would also provide the benefit of pointing people to the  
> OpenSearch spec, which may encourage people to consider using  
> OpenSearch (a good thing, IMHO).
>
> The name "search" is just too generic to limit it to OpenSearch even  
> though I like OpenSearch and would like to see it used more.
>
> I think opensearch v4 is looking at some other relation names also,  
> like "suggestions" [3].
>
> [3] http://tinyurl.com/6xnbuy
>
> [3] http://groups.google.com/group/opensearch/browse_thread/thread/b92db46be8cdc52d/f00d21f3287b1a91
>
> Perhaps opensearch v4 should say something about autodiscovery using  
> the HTTP Link Header.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 2008-11-30 20:11, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> This is a fairly substantial rewrite of the spec, based upon the   
>> observation that the link header really isn't the central concept   
>> here; it's link relations themselves.
> ...
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 00:18:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:57 GMT