Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92

hello all.

On 2014-01-17, 22:44 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>John already reported that he checked with Erik Wilde on the proposed use
>of rel=profile for the purpose at hand and that Erik said it was fine.
>Why can't we accept the opinion of the very author of the relevant RFC
>rather than
> try to second guess what the text was meant to allow or not?

maybe this helps a little bit, too: link relations as used on the web
today *are not* self-contained descriptions of what they mean. their
semantics are only determined by the context (i.e., media type) they're
used in. from the web point of view, the question whether you're
identifying a certain hypermedia control with "type" or "profile" or
"thisreallyisonlyaname" does not matter all that much, as long as you do
not directly violate what the often extremely fuzzy link relation
registration is saying. what matters more is that the semantics of the
hypermedia control in the context of the media type are well-defined. to
maybe take a little bit of passion out of the debate: as long as there is
agreement *which* links to specify and *what* they should mean for LDP
clients, the hard problems are solved. *how* to identify them is not such
a central issue, so i think arnaud's idea is appropriate: everybody has
made up their minds what they want to expose as hypermedia controls, and
now let's have a simply vote how to name that thing.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 08:45:44 UTC