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

Re: IANA Link Relations Registry (draft-nottingham-http-link-header)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:39:01 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2EA1F61C-EA80-46CF-910B-D9D0205927D8@mnot.net>
To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
It's not superfluous; there's a difference between a concrete relation  
and the type of that relation.

On 06/09/2009, at 11:03 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:

> Mark,
> The current Web Linking draft (draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06)  
> specifies a 'Link Relation Type Registry'. Would you be so kind as  
> to drop the word 'Type' from this title as it is superfluous and  
> could some mapping between "link relations" and "media types".
> The existing registry is called 'Atom Link Relations' and has a  
> short name of link-relations (http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/ 
> ). I propose that we simply drop "Atom" from the title and run with  
> "Link Relations" in light of the fact that they are generic.  
> Further, I propose that the existing registry be used in place as  
> compatibility with Atom is retained and there are a number of  
> resources that link to it currently - this request should be  
> reflected in the draft. There is enough confusion already as an out  
> of date HTML version is maintained at the same location (last  
> updated 2008-05-20) in addition to the XHTML, XML and TXT versions  
> (last updated 2009-02-20). The reference to RFC4287 in the header of  
> this registry should also be updated to the "Web Linking" RFC (to be  
> assigned).
> I hope it is not too late to accommodate these requests in the next  
> revision as I believe that keeping this as simple as possible will  
> facilitate adoption and reduce confusion.
> Sam

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 05:39:43 UTC

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