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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:22:00 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FECF6FAA-82CE-4ED7-97D9-5CE00E639A49@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Hmm. That section would merely be a verbatim repeat of the registry,  
since by definition there isn't any more information to add.

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.

Cheers,


On 19/07/2009, at 10:39 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> FYI
>> ...
>
> Draft 06 adds the "up" relation, for which apparently there is no  
> spec, just a registration entry in the Atom Link Relations Registry  
> (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link- 
> relations.xhtml>). This is similar to "first", "last", and  
> "payment", which aren't new in draft 06.
>
> It might be a good idea to clarify that those four link relations  
> are indeed (re-)defined by this specification, as the new registry  
> procedure clearly says "specification required".
>
> 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).
>
> BR, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 04:22:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT