RE: HTTP Link, rel="powder" cf. rel="describedby"

Hi,

So what is your thought on what the rel type could be?  Rel="meta" seems
intuitiv, but is not regsitered.
Is there such a thing as rel="description" or something similar?

-- Kai

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:21 AM
> To: Public POWDER
> Subject: HTTP Link, rel="powder" cf. rel="describedby"
> 
> 
> I had a (very good) meeting with Mark Nottingham yesterday. 
> He's Yahoo's point man at the IETF and the person behind the 
> HTTP Link Header internet draft to which our DR doc refers [1].
> 
> He seems happy that there is a good deal of consensus around 
> most of the important issues that draft raises. The area 
> where there is currently less consensus is how various 
> relationship types should be registered and maintained. This 
> goes way beyond POWDER in terms of scope but it clearly 
> affects us since our docs talk about using rel="powder." 
> We've followed the current recommendations by using a profile 
> document.
> 
> Bottom line - with a bit of political negotiation - Mark 
> believes that HTTP link will be able to progress along the 
> route to RFC within the time line we need.
> 
> But... whilst our use of HTTP Link is right in Mark's view, 
> the registration of rel="powder" probably isn't. Section 4.2 
> [2] of the draft says:
> 
> "A Link relation is a way of indicating the semantics of a 
> link.  Link relations are not format-specific, and MUST NOT 
> specify a particular format or media type that they are to be 
> used with."
> 
> I was concerned about this since rel="powder" /does/ indicate 
> a particular format (i.e. POWDER). I raised this on the HTTP 
> list and Jonathan Rees replied [3] that he thought this 
> referred to the origin of the link, not its target. Mark said 
> no - actually the intention is that /neither/ end of the link 
> should be format-specific - that's the job of the MIME type.
> 
> I said that we were wary of trying to register a new MIME 
> type - after all, POWDER is either XML or RDF/OWL (semantic extension
> notwithstanding) and that HTML Profile meant we didn't /need/ 
> to register either rel="powder" or a new MIME type. Well... 
> that's true but we are talking about registering the @rel 
> type so that argument rather loses potency!
> 
> Mark pointed me to a doc [4] that is an entry point for a 
> description of how we would register the POWDER Media type 
> which actually looks pretty simple - being in a W3C Rec 
> document means that IETF is likely to agree to the new type 
> with little delay.
> 
> To get to the point, Mark's recommendation is that we
> 
> 1. Use a more generic @rel type of describedby (something 
> other groups want as well btw)
> 
> 2. Register a POWDER-specific Media type. I guess ours would be
> 
> application/powder+xml
> 
> and
> 
> application/powder-s+xml
> 
> ???
> 
> Neither of these registration steps is particularly hard to do.
> 
> In terms of the WG's process, I suggest we teat this as a 
> Last Call comment and deal with it when we resume in 
> September - *unless* - Matt -
>   you advise that /if/ we were to make such a change we'd 
> require a new LC version, in which case we may need to take a 
> couple of resolutions by e-mail before those docs you're 
> working on are fully published (er, which I believe is 
> scheduled for a week today)
> 
> Phil.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02
> [2]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-0
> 2#section-4.2
> [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JulSep/0122.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 08:44:10 UTC