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: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:44:46 -0700
To: Brett Slatkin <brett@haxor.com>
CC: Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343784D58272@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
I'll comment in reverse order...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bslatkin@gmail.com [mailto:bslatkin@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Brett
> Slatkin
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:16 PM

> So far, the amount of push-back I've received trying to get into the
> registry has reinforced the idea that links with the URI extension
> relation aren't good enough to be accepted as standards.

I am not sure what you mean by this. The pushback here has been mostly about reserving the general term 'hub' to be used exclusively for a single protocol. Can you point me to where statements were made that indicated URI extension relations are not good enough for standards?

In the current working draft for XRD (an OASIS standard proposal) we include a URI extension relation which has specific processing meaning because we felt it was more appropriate than registering something so specific. In WebFinger we decided to use the relation type 'describedby' for resolving (the proposed) acct: URIs but also included an URI extension relation to allow servers to explicitly indicate their support of the protocol. These are two examples (at least one is a proposed standard) for using URI extension relations.

> > * Is anything bad going to happen if someone tries to talk PSHB to an
> endpoint linked as 'hub', which doesn't support it?
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> > * Are there currently other protocols likely to use this? Are they
> likely to operate side by side for the same feed?
> 
> Hopefully there will be a bunch of companion/extension protocols to
> the core PubSubHubbub spec that make it function efficiently for all
> content types. But no, there aren't any other protocols I know of, at
> this point that would also use this <link> relation. The only other
> one that comes close is rssCloud, which has its own element in the RSS
> namespace.

Given these answers, I don't think there is a problem with registering 'hub' as a relation type (if you can provide a description that does not limit it for a single protocol in a single document type). You can then define in your protocol how clients should behave when they encounter such links.

But again, I just don't understand why rel='http://pubsubhubbub.net' is any lesser than rel='hub'.

EHL
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 06:45:05 GMT

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