W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > August 2008

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

From: Smith, Kevin, \(R&D\) VF-Group <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:01:10 +0200
Message-ID: <37AC1116121D3F43B9A67CB16E2E79FF6634C1@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@fosi.org>, "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Cc: "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>

+1 to 'describdBy'; makes sense to me :) 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
Sent: 01 August 2008 09:58
To: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich
Cc: Public POWDER
Subject: Re: HTTP Link, rel="powder" cf. rel="describedby"




Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> So what is your thought on what the rel type could be?  Rel="meta" 
> seems intuitiv, but is not regsitered.

That's a whole other can of worms - I've just written to a bunch of W3C
folk about how a common view of registering @rel types should be done.

> Is there such a thing as rel="description" or something similar?

No - but 'describedby' is in our POWDER-s vocab and, I think the GRDDL
folk would like it too.

P

>> -----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 09:01:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:13 GMT