Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03


OpenSearch defines a "search" relation name.  Should your document 
include an entry for "search" in section 6.2 for the initial contents of 
the Link Relation Type Registry?

- Relation Name:  search
- Description:  Refers to a search description document
- Reference: [2]

[2] "this document" i.e.,

(assuming this idea makes it into rev 04).

Note that I did not say "OpenSearch" description document because I can 
envision other content types (besides 
application/opensearchdescription+xml) that may become applicable to the 
"search" relation name.

One reason for putting "search" in your internet-draft rather than wait 
to register it after the registry is established is to make it clear 
that "search" should not be limited to OpenSearch descriptions.

When the <link> element appears in HTML/XHTML in accordance with [1], it 
also provides a @type attribute.  Your document also supports "type" as 
a link-param.

So perhaps an additional appendix can be written to essentially say what 
I said above; the appendix can reference [1] as an example of a search 
description document, but make it clear that the "search" relation name 
should not be limited to OpenSearch.

This would also provide the benefit of pointing people to the OpenSearch 
spec, which may encourage people to consider using OpenSearch (a good 
thing, IMHO).

The name "search" is just too generic to limit it to OpenSearch even 
though I like OpenSearch and would like to see it used more.

I think opensearch v4 is looking at some other relation names also, like 
"suggestions" [3].



Perhaps opensearch v4 should say something about autodiscovery using the 
HTTP Link Header.


On 2008-11-30 20:11, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> This is a fairly substantial rewrite of the spec, based upon the  
> observation that the link header really isn't the central concept  
> here; it's link relations themselves.

Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 18:56:26 UTC