W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2008

Re: link relationship registration [was: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:55:15 +1100
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Atom Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <10570784-102E-47BA-AFFB-F988B0044F83@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Yes. If we went pure "Specification Required", any RFC or NOTE (for  
example) could be used as the basis of registration, as long as it  
passed muster with a Designated Expert.

Either process would be fine by me; I'm mostly interested in what the  
Atom and HTML folks think about these options.




On 10/12/2008, at 8:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> How about:
>>        <t>New relation types MUST correspond to a formal  
>> publication by a
>>           recognized standards body. In the case of registration  
>> for the IETF
>>           itself, the registration proposal MUST be published as an  
>> Standards-track RFC.</t>
>> Note that unlike media types, this does NOT require IESG approval  
>> for relation types from outside the IETF; rather, just a 'formal  
>> publication', which AIUI corresponds to the REC track in the W3C  
>> (but not Notes), OASIS standard, etc.
>> Feedback appreciated.
>> ...
>
> Looking at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1>, this  
> looks like a mix between "Specification Required" and "RFC  
> Required". The difference to "Specification Required" being that  
> only standards-track RFCs are allowed, and that for non-IETF  
> documents we required "formal publication by a recognized standards  
> body".
>
> Is our case sufficiently different from "Specification Required" to  
> justify defining a new rule? (I'm not sure, but I think we should  
> make sure we considered it...)
>
> BR, Julian
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:55:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC