Re: Input on request for link relation

 > (opaque URI-based) rel so I have proposed class="action" be added for

<link rel="stop@occi"

where "occi" is registered as for use by occi.

IOW allow the link registry to define rel scopes. The url or clash thing 
sucks and I don't want someone rolling up with a curies/qnames or some 
other XML macrocrap proposal for Atom.

Bill


Sam Johnston wrote:
> Another requirement I've stumbled on is the ability to group links.
> For OCCI for example we want to give users the ability to create their
> own actions (eg start, stop, restart) which will be advertised in the
> HTTP headers and/or HTML HEAD. Currently each action has it's own
> (opaque URI-based) rel so I have proposed class="action" be added for
> grouping. Alternatively we could do rel="[http://purl.org/occi/]
> action" and refine the action with one or more custom attributes (type
> is not really appropriate here, nor when advertising protocol
> endpoints like SSH and RDP which is anoter problem we ran into).
> 
> Pagination (eg first, last, next, previous) is another potentially
> interesting group. Though the semantics are mostly predefined one
> could envisage links like "next 100", "next 1000".
> 
> Sam on iPhone
> 
> On 12/11/2009, at 7:18, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 16/09/2009, at 7:46 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
>>>> Would it be possible then to support multiple references so that
>>>> people
>>>> can see at a glance that a given relation is implemented as
>>>> described in
>>>> multiple formats (rather than just the first format that happened to
>>>> register it)? May well not be worth the maintenance effort.
>>> 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]
>>>
>> Yes, that sounds like a great idea. And vaguely familiar:
>>
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/
>> 0699.html
>>
>>   Thanks,
>>   -joe
>