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

RE: Input on request for link relation

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:19:29 -0700
To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
CC: atom-syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343784D57E6A@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam Johnston
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:47 AM
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: atom-syntax Syntax; Hadrien Gardeur; HTTP Working Group; apps-
> discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Input on request for link relation
> 
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> Perhaps not, and there could well be some delay in acceptance if
> committees are involved. My worry is that if we don't streamline our
> processes as much as possible (see Ian's suggestion about IANA
> maintaining a RelExtensions style wiki) then people will do as they
> please anyway - see rel="hub", rev="canonical", etc.

I am sure there will be those that even something as "simple" as wiki will be deemed too much effort. The delay is usually not with the registry but with getting consensus. The longer it take to build consensus is usually an indication of issues with the request to take a common term and assign it to a particular use case.

EHL
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 02:26:38 GMT

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