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: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:42:21 -0400
Message-ID: <a23d87fa0908310642t3d1b2635t8f432d32daca551f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > On 31/07/2009, at 10:20 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > Similarly, the registry should define whether or not link relations
> > > are allowed at the document level (<link rel>, Link:) and at the
> > > phrasing level (<a rel>, <area rel>). Some types in HTML5 only apply
> > > to one or the other.
> >
> > That's a job for HTML5 as an application of the relations, not the
> > registry.
> So every time someone adds something to the registry, we have to update
> HTML5 to say whether that keyword can be used with HTML?

I'd like to intertwine this point and the following point:

> > > I would like to request that the registration mechanism be made
> > > significantly simpler than the one described in the spec. For example,
> > > a simple mechanism could be just to edit a wiki listing all the
> > > extensions.
> >
> > In the IETF, IANA is the mechanism for managing registries like this.
> Regardless of who manages the registry, I would like to request that the
> registration mechanism be made significantly simpler than the one
> described in the spec.

The registration mechanism calls for creating a document, having it
discussed, and then
updating the registry. While that seems like a burden, I'll turn it around
and point
out that it gives current active formats the ability to review the meaning
and request verbiage be added to cover their particular format, such
as the examples you gave above about document level and phrasing level for

Regardless, I don't believe a flat registry with one document per rel type
is going
to be sufficient. There should be a mechanism within the registry to specify
'clarifications' for each rel type. This is particularly important in the
case of new
formats that come along later, like JSON has in the past couple years, that
weren't around when a rel value was registered.

For example, a new media-type Foo comes along in two years, wants to use
the link header and all the registered relations make sense except 'up', how
that be noted in the registry?

Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 13:43:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:09 GMT