Re: rel=meta and the Link Relation Type registry (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt)

Mark,

> The draft is in IESG review at this point, and in any case the idea behind it
> is to include those relations currently in the registry or in HTML4, rather
> than be an all-inclusive listing.

Understood. 

> So, the best thing to do would be to register a new value; you can start that
> process now, by starting to write the specification, in anticipation of the
> draft becoming an RFC.

Thanks! 

Just for clarification: I understand that your answer implies that none of
the existing, default rel-values in your draft apply here in our case and
hence it makes sense to register rel=meta, indeed.


Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 21:16:13 +1100
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Joe Presbrey <presbrey@mit.edu>, <jambo@mit.edu>,
> Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: rel=meta and the Link Relation Type registry (was Re: New Version
> Notification -  draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt)
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> The draft is in IESG review at this point, and in any case the idea behind it
> is to include those relations currently in the registry or in HTML4, rather
> than be an all-inclusive listing.
> 
> So, the best thing to do would be to register a new value; you can start that
> process now, by starting to write the specification, in anticipation of the
> draft becoming an RFC.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> On 05/03/2010, at 2:59 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Would it still be possible to extend the "Link Relation Type registry" [1]
>> with a rel="meta" value? Use case would be ACLs as described in [2] (see
>> section 3.2). If this is not possible, what rel value would you advise to
>> use, instead?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>      Michael
>> 
>> [1] 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08#section-6.2
>> [2] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2009/Papers/ISWC/rdf-access-control/paper.pdf
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>> Ireland, Europe
>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:39:49 +1100
>>> To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification -
>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt
>>> Resent-From: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>>> Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:40:36 +0000
>>> 
>>> FYI.
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Internet-Draft@ietf.org
>>>> Date: 2 March 2010 12:00:01 AM AEDT
>>>> To: mnot@pobox.com,
>>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header@tools.ietf.org,lisa.dusseault@gmail.com
>>>> Subject: New Version Notification -
>>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt
>>>> 
>>>> New version (-08) has been submitted for
>>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt.
>>>> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.tx>>>>
t
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Diff from previous version:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08
>>>> 
>>>> IETF Secretariat.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 10:33:53 UTC