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

Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:58:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9B9ED4.2060702@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>
Noah Slater wrote:
> ...
> Ah, okay.
> The only way that would work is if you were considering a document that existed
> in multiple hierarchies, and you took the subject of "a" to be any direct parent
> within that collection of hierarchies, instead of any parent in any hierarchy.
> This an incorrect interpretation of the my registration.
> ...

I agree with that; I just wanted to point out that "a parent document" 
is not necessarily going to convince people that it includes any 
*ancestor*. It appears the use of "up" in CMIS therefore is incorrect 
and needs to be replaced by something else (now including the Atom 
mailing list).

> Is it important that we clarify this? For any person that argues for that
> interpretation, would it not suffice to argue out that the language is loose
> enough that there is no reasonable way to claim one interpretation to the
> exclusion of another. Maybe even linking to this email.
> What do you think we should do?
> ...

I think it'll be sufficient to tune the text once "up" gets 
re-registered when the new registry is created. In general this shows 
that it's dangerous to register relations minted by somebody else 
(HTML5) when that spec isn't yet stable.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 09:59:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC