Re: Link Relation Type Registry for @rel/@rev in RDFa

Shane McCarron wrote:
> I actually think this link type registry that they have been discussing 
> in the HTTP activity is a bad idea, in that it conflicts with the type 

Actually, it's the IETF Applications area. Discussion happened on the 
HTTPbis mailing list mainly because the draft started with the goal to 
formally (re-)define the HTTP Link header. I also note that the draft 
has been discussed quite a lot on the TAG mailing list.

Link relations should be defined independently of formats, thus it seems 
to me that the approach taken with XHTML2 (is it 
<http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/>?) was a bad choice in the first place.

> registry we already have.  I have repeatedly pointed out to that group 
> that we are already in this space, and that we have a collection of 
> values that at the very least need to be incorporated into their work.

"Their work" defines a registry and a registry mechanism; thus, once 
it's finished, additional registrations can be made.

> I think that the right thing for them to do is to defer to the value 
> collection we have already defined.  That collection is defined using 
> RDFa, and is readily extractable / machine readable using rules from a 
> W3C Recommendation.  What more do we need to do?

Can you point to a document that explains the registration process?

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 11:45:26 UTC