Re: Link: grandfathered format-specific registered relations

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I'm thinking that the following registered relations are in fact
> specific to one format or application, and this should be noted in
> their registrations.
> 
> current
> edit
> edit-media
> enclosure
> next-archive
> prev-archive
> replies
> service
> 
> Comments?

Wondering... As Sam says, relations should be generic and types specific.
That makes sense for GETtable URis, for example, rel=replies is generic and
type would say whether it's a RSS feed or an HTML page with replies.

However, what about POSTable URIs? The type attribute, as I understand it,
says what data you'll get back, not what data to send. How can you say that
a rel=edit link is a URI where you can POST a specific data type, maybe
getting text/html in the response?