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: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:30:29 -0400
Message-ID: <a23d87fa0909010730x644400bbo8f1710beb556ac5d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> On 31/08/2009, at 11:42 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
>  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 per-media-type
>> '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.
> I strongly disagree; the whole point of registered relations is that their
> semantics are independent of format. While there are certainly
> format-specific considerations for each, that can be handled in the world of
> that format (whether it's in a huge, monolithic spec, or something more
> agile).

Right, I'm just looking for the ability to add a link from the registry to
that 'huge, monolithic spec'.

Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 14:31:09 UTC

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