W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

WHATWG IRC chat about link relations (ISSUE-27)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:07:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4C6FF9D4.3070002@gmx.de>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
WRT <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100821#l-348>:

> # # [16:54] <Dashiva> Whose idea was it to suggest the HTML use a global link registry and then reject any link relation that was specific to HTML?
> # # [16:55] <MikeSmith> Dashiva: some might say it as maybe the idea of those who were acting in bad faith from the beginning
> # # [16:55] <MikeSmith> without naming any names
> # # [16:56] <MikeSmith> of either the people who might say that, or the people they might say it about
> # # [16:56] <MikeSmith> anyway, if the link registry is not going to be useful in the way it was supposed to be, everybody will just do an end run around it

I don't find that helpful. At all.

I'm not aware of any rejection of a link relation with the reason "too 
specific to HTML". It seems that people are confused by the distinction 
between Link Relation Types and Link Relation Application Data; it's all 
in the spec, and I recommend to read it; to send feedback to the author, 
or to ask on the HTML WG mailing list.

The spec is pretty clear about that a new link relation *can* be 
specific to an application, see 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10#section-4.1>:

>    Registered relation type names MUST conform to the reg-rel-type rule,
>    and MUST be compared character-by-character in a case-insensitive
>    fashion.  They SHOULD be appropriate to the specificity of the
>    relation type; i.e., if the semantics are highly specific to a
>    particular application, the name should reflect that, so that more
>    general names are available for less specific use.
>
>    Registered relation types MUST NOT constrain the media type of the
>    context IRI, and MUST NOT constrain the available representation
>    media types of the target IRI.  However, they can specify the
>    behaviours and properties of the target resource (e.g., allowable
>    HTTP methods, request and response media types which must be
>    supported).

Of course it's *preferable* to define a link relation in a way that it 
becomes reusable with other formats. I don't believe there's anything in 
HTML5 currently for which this isn't the case.

While we're at it:

> #  [17:24] <Dashiva> Julian demands large changes to existing specs to register link relations, but we can't fix the registry because the RFC defining it is almost final

I didn't demand large changes, I asked whether a certain aspect of the 
spec makes sense. How about actually replying to that mail? (see 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0139.html>)

Also: the specification defining the registry *is* final; it was 
approved in May. Before that, it went through multiple informal Last 
Calls, and two formal IETF Last Calls, both of which were announced on 
HTML WG mailing list. In particular, the changes that were made before 
the last LC were the result of the feedback of several members of the 
HTML WG, see 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0954.html>.

(I'll be happy to elaborate on why it takes so long to get the actual 
RFC published, in case somebody is really interested).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 21 August 2010 16:08:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 21 August 2010 16:08:40 GMT