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: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:42:54 +1000
Cc: Brett Slatkin <brett@haxor.com>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6E6CD471-0EF1-4212-BC16-BB1DEF50DA4F@mnot.net>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Also, I think the mitigating factor here is that the hub folks have  
been working on this for a while, and Link isn't approved or an RFC yet.

Cheers,


On 21/09/2009, at 4:44 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 08:43:50 GMT

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