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: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:22:29 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
Message-ID: <20090719162229.GD26597@tumbolia.org>
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:52:40PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Which registry procedure?
>> ...
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06#section-6.2>.

Am I correct in understanding:

  * This is the only document that talks about replacing the existing registry.

  * The existing IANA registry will be replaced in situ.

If, so then:

  * Why does the specification link to:


    This page doesn't exist.

    The changelog suggest that this should have been removed:

      o  Removed specific location for the registry, since IANA seems to
         have its own ideas about that.

    Instead of removing the location, should IANA sort out the existing mess?

  * Why does the specification omit details available in the current registry.

    The up relation in the specification is currently missing:

      - Expected Display Characteristics

      - Security Considerations

      - Reference

      - Registration Date

    This effects almost every other relation in the specification.

  * Why does the specification add the specification requirement? The previous
    relations added without specification seem quite useful. Do we really want
    to prevent relations like that being added?


Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Sunday, 19 July 2009 16:23:13 UTC

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