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

Re: Input on request for link relation

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:21:42 +1000
Cc: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, atom-syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-Id: <0CB59F7B-A9DD-4866-8F70-A65869A79277@mnot.net>
To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>

On 11/09/2009, at 11:17 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:

> One nitpick about the process is that it seems a request can be  
> denied with a suggestion for another relation (for example we might  
> prefer to use something like "push" or "notif[y|ier|ication| 
> ications" rather than "hub" for this one) but then that would  
> require restarting the process where it should proceed to  
> registration immediately if the change is accepted by the applicant.

Yes, but is the overhead really that onerous?


> I also question the relevance of the "reference" field in the  
> registry as this links relations to implementations which I think we  
> agree is a bad thing - the registry should capture all the necessary  
> semantics without reliance on external references. It may be  
> interesting to list zero or more implementations of the relation  
> (that is, make the "reference" field optional as well and allow  
> others to add themselves to it), however I'm not sure the  
> maintenance load is worth the effort.

Not to implementations, to the source documents for the registrations  
(which IANA likes to see in registries, AIUI, for paper trail etc).

It's true that the pre-populated entries have a lot of references to  
formats, but that's an artefact of history, not the direction we'll  
move in going forward.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 01:22:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:10 GMT