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

Re: Input on request for link relation

From: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:04:45 +0200
Message-ID: <21606dcf0909210404o6f3cd749wea3f53cf6fcbec9c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Brett Slatkin <brett@haxor.com>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 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.

Which reminds me... a number of drafts have already resulted in the creation
of IANA registries <http://www.iana.org/protocols/>. Perhaps it would be
sensible to do the same while we refine the Web Linking draft? Is it still


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 11:05:24 UTC

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