W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:52:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4A634148.1080607@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
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?
> ...


>> 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 

BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 19 July 2009 15:53:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC