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

Re: Input on request for link relation

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0909240934550.15471@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> How about adding a new field for references to more information about 
> how a relation is used in a particular context (scoped by context media 
> type)?
> 
> E.g.,
> 
> References regarding use in specific contexts:
>     text/html: [HTML5]
>     application/atom+xml: [RFC4287]
> 
> One concern here is that there are going to be questions about 
> authority; while it's fine for the HTML5 crowd to dictate what happens 
> when you see a particular relation in an HTML context, what happens when 
> someone comes along and defines a spec for a media type they don't own? 
> We'd need some additional guidance about amending registrations, I 
> think, which is doable, but it'll make things more complex.
> 
> What do people think about this generally? Ian, would this help you at 
> all?

It would certainly be an improvement, though I'm still unconvinced that we 
want different definitions for the same link type for different MIME 
types. Difference conformance classes, sure, but that's another issue.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 09:30:30 GMT

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