W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Status 'describedby' relationship type (was [Re: @rel type 'describedby'])

From: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:45:08 -0800
To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, "barbara.roseman@iana.org" <barbara.roseman@iana.org>
CC: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-ID: <C5ADECD4.2279F%michelle.cotton@icann.org>

Please send the most recent copy of the template to iana@iana.org where you will receive an automated ticket request number.
IANA will then request the IESG to review the template and approve the request.  As soon as a decision is made we will communicate it to you.

Template from RFC4287.
  o  Attribute Value: (A value for the "rel" attribute that conforms to
      the syntax rule given in Section
   o  Description:
   o  Expected display characteristics:
   o  Security considerations:

I will be in charge of processing this request so feel free to ask me any questions.

Thank you and apologies for any delay in replying to your earlier message.

Michelle Cotton

On 2/3/09 1:37 AM, "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org> wrote:

Dear Miss Roseman, Miss Cotton,

I wonder whether you can tell me what your position is on the request I
submitted last year for a relationship type of 'describedby' to be added
to the Atom registry [1].

I am well aware that the initial submission was not done particularly
well and have attempted in subsequent e-mails to correct earlier
mistakes, however, these e-mails have not been answered so I am in the
dark as to where the registration request has got to.

The communication thread is as follows:

19 Nov. Initial e-mail sent to barbara.roseman@iana.org, not publicly

Reply received from Michelle seeking clarification to which I responded
again on the same day [2].

24 Nov After taking advice, I prepared a better request, updated the
relevant document and sent an e-mail to Michelle [3].

8 Dec I sent a further update to Michelle (below).

Neither of the last 2 e-mails prompted a reply.

The relevant documentation for describedby is available with W3C member
access at [4] and, if needed, without W3C access at [5].

In the interim, Eran Hammer-Lahav has submitted an Internet Draft [6]
which makes direct reference to the describedby link relationship and
the POWDER document (at its long term URI, where it is expected to be
within the next few weeks).

I would be grateful for any clarification you're able to offer.

Phil Archer

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Nov/0016.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Nov/0021.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#appD
[5] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090120-diff.html#appD
[6] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-01

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: FW: @rel type 'describedby'
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:59:07 +0000
From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
To: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>
CC: public-powderwg@w3.org <public-powderwg@w3.org>
References: <C5499970.20315%michelle.cotton@icann.org>

Dear Miss Cotton,

I write to give you a further update regarding the request for add
'describedby' to the ATOM link relations registry.

Firstly, I have just submitted a second registration request to IANA for
the two media types we need for POWDER [1]. This follows advice on
process errors made when originally requesting those media types. One of
the actions necessary for that was to add details of the registration to
the relevant normative document. In the light of that action, it seemed
sensible to add a similar section with details of the describedby link
relationship. This has been done at [2]. This is a W3C member-access
version of the document published at [3]  on which a Last Call period
has just ended. The updated version includes the changes made in
relation to the registration issues concerning describedby and the media

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to discussions taking place
in other fora concerning describedby. For example 4, 5, 6. This is where
the general issue of metadata discovery in general, and of Mark
Nottingham's I-D in HTTP Link is being discussed. The use of
'describedby' cf. 'meta' has been discussed and I believe that consensus
has been reached around describedby (which is relevant to more than just

Please advise me if there is anything further needed for your


[1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0033.html
[2]  http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html#appD
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/
[5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/more-uniform-access.html
(long thread)

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
> ------ 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

Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 18:12:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:05 UTC