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: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:55:55 +0000
Message-ID: <493F922B.5000801@philarcher.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
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>



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.

I see what you're trying to do here, and, as someone with a rel type 
registration request pending with IANA, I can only sympathise. However, 
I see two problems:

1. Your proposed text entails the definition of a 'recognised standards 
body' - that alone could cause controversy. Any list of such bodies 
written today could well be out of date by this time next year.

2. I understand that the Web works by keeping things distributed rather 
than centralised, but in this case, there would still be a need for some 
sort of central 'list of registered relationship types' to avoid two 
working groups in different standards bodies coming up with new 
definitions for existing rel types. Now, to go back to an older idea, 
/that/ could be a wiki - a simple table giving the rel type, the 
description and the relevant formal publication. But for this to work, 
the wiki would probably need to be cited in the I-D/RFC and we're back 
to who is going to host that?

Phil.

> 
> 
> 
> On 02/12/2008, at 7:10 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:11 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding registration
>>> requirements, as I think that's the biggest remaining sticking point.
>>> Note that it was previously "IESG Approval"; I've changed it to "IETF
>>> Review" (nee "IETF Consensus") so that a document is required. Also, I
>>> believe this still accommodates other standards orgs (like the W3C)
>>> using their processes to publish documents that register entries, just
>>> as with media types.
>>
>> That would surprise me; while there is a significant overlap in the
>> communities, the IETF does not, in general, accept consensus
>> in the W3C community in place of consensus in its own community.
>>
>> The media type registration spec phrases it this way:
>>
>>
>> 3.1.  Standards Tree
>>
>>   The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the
>>   Internet community.  Registrations in the standards tree MUST be
>>   approved by the IESG and MUST correspond to a formal publication by a
>>   recognized standards body.  In the case of registration for the IETF
>>   itself ...
>>
>>
>>  -- http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=4288#page-4
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:56:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:27 GMT