Re: Link Header draft

There are at least two ways to read your preference;

a) the Link header should be specific to HTML, and applicable to no  
other format
b) the Link header's rel registry should be HTML's, and other formats  
have to follow that

I don't know that either of these is workable, given that HTML and  
Atom both use link relations.

Establishing a registry isn't inventing a 3rd namespace, as long as  
its initial contents are aligned with current uses.

The biggest technical concern that I currently have is that having a  
combined registry leaves the door open for relations to be registered  
that won't be syntactically valid in HTML4, if the Atom rules are  
followed. If the HTML4 rules are followed, it would mean that the  
Atom folks would have to agree to an amendment of what a registerable  
link relation is -- but then again, they're going to have to agree to  
pointing to the combined registry anyway, so it's not that much more  
to ask, perhaps.

On 2007/02/14, at 7:27 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Oh - and there's also already an Atom link relations IANA  
>> registry, so
>> it would require a certain amount of coordination.
>> What do others think? Should there be a single, flat link relation
>> registry?
> The previous spec just deferred to HTML4 for its definitions, do we  
> want
> to not do that here? It seems like it would be dangerous to invent  
> a third
> namespace (especially one that overlaps with existing ones),  
> especially
> for a feature used as rarely as this one.
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                ) 
> \._.,--....,'``.    fL
>       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _ 
> \  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'-- 
> (,_..'`-.;.'

Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 10:58:05 UTC