- From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:22:29 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:52:40PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Which registry procedure?
>> ...
>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06#section-6.2>.
Am I correct in understanding:
* This is the only document that talks about replacing the existing registry.
* The existing IANA registry will be replaced in situ.
If, so then:
* Why does the specification link to:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/
This page doesn't exist.
The changelog suggest that this should have been removed:
o Removed specific location for the registry, since IANA seems to
have its own ideas about that.
Instead of removing the location, should IANA sort out the existing mess?
* Why does the specification omit details available in the current registry.
The up relation in the specification is currently missing:
- Expected Display Characteristics
- Security Considerations
- Reference
- Registration Date
This effects almost every other relation in the specification.
* Why does the specification add the specification requirement? The previous
relations added without specification seem quite useful. Do we really want
to prevent relations like that being added?
Thanks,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Sunday, 19 July 2009 16:23:13 UTC