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

Re: FW: @rel type 'describedby'

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:34:33 +0000
Message-ID: <492AC989.2010100@philarcher.org>
To: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>
CC: "public-powderwg@w3.org" <public-powderwg@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Dear Miss Cotton,

Following our e-mail exchange and some feedback from Julian Reschke 
(cc'd here) I have been working on some edits to the POWDER 
specification that will, I hope, clarify exactly what it is we're asking 
for wrt. 'describedby'.

I can't formally publish a new draft of the doc (we expect the next 
version to be the Proposed Recommendation) but I would like to share the 
expected edits with you - see [1]. The changes from the current 
published draft emphasise the ATOM Link registry as the key reference 
point and show the describedby relationship used in a sample ATOM 
document (example 4-2). Specific reference is made to the ATOM RFC and 
the registry. All changes in section 4.1 are highlighted, the last being 
at the beginning of section 4.1.4.

I hope this helps.

Regards

Phil.

[1] http://philarcher.org/powder/20081124.html#assoc


Michelle Cotton wrote:
> Dear Mr. Archer,
>
> My name is Michelle Cotton and your message has been passed to me by Barbara Roseman.
> I would like to verify what you are requesting to register so that I can provide the correct registration procedures.
>
> Are you looking for a registration in the following registry?
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>
> Thank you,
>
> Michelle Cotton
> IANA
>
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:29:05 -0800
> To: <barbara.roseman@iana.org>
> Subject: @rel type 'describedby'
>
> Dear Ms Roseman,
>
> I was given your name following a conversation at a W3C meeting last
> week. I write on behalf of the W3C POWDER Working Group [1] to request
> the registration of a new link relationship type as follows:
>
> Relationship type: describedby
> Purpose: to link a resource to a description that applies to
>           that resource
> Documentation: http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking
>
> The Recommendations Track Document 'POWDER: Description Resources'
> (cited above) was published this week as a (second) Last Call and we
> noted that we do not expect to issue a separate call for implementations
> before seeking transition to Proposed Recommendation next month. I am
> also writing to IETF to register the MIME types documented in the same
> place.
>
> Background
> ==========
> The Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) defines a method by
> which descriptions may be applied to multiple resources, typically
> 'everything on a Web site.' The link relationship will be used to point
> from those resources to such a description, either in HTML link elements
> or through HTTP Link elements (currently under discussion through Mark
> Nottingham's Internet Draft [2] and, I understand, expected to be
> updated later this week and moved to RFC status subject to comments
> received).
>
> The relationship A 'describedby' B does not imply that B is a POWDER
> file (the MIME type does that), simply that B provides a description of
> A. The representation returned from A and B is not constrained by the
> relationship.
>
> Wider context
> =============
> I believe it is also appropriate to outline the broader context in which
> this request is made. There has been a good deal of discussion amongst
> various W3C Working Groups for more than a year on how @rel types should
> be managed. Various solutions have been proposed: the use of HTML 4's
> profile attribute being one, writing new types into a wiki being another
> and so on. Consensus has been hard to reach. At the recent W3C Tech
> Plenary, several groups, including POWDER, took part in a discussion
> with the HTML 5 WG on this issue. Although it would be wrong to suggest
> that there was unanimity on the way forward, there was general consensus
> that registering new relationship types should be a relatively
> lightweight process but clearly not so lightweight that it became
> unworkable.
>
> Whether IANA decides to approve the POWDER WG's request to register
> 'describedby' or not, the process of registration is therefore something
> of significant interest beyond any one WG.
>
> I have not copied this to POWDER's public mailing list as I am unsure
> whether that would be acceptable to you. If it is, I would be grateful
> if you would cc public-powderwg@w3.org in your reply.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Phil Archer
> POWDER WG Chair.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>   


-- 

Please note my new e-mail address. My ICRA/FOSI e-mail addresses will not function after the end of November.

Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 15:35:12 GMT

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