Re: "up" relation, was: Fwd: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 02:39:35PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> It might be a good idea to clarify that those four link relations are
> indeed (re-)defined by this specification

I see the following:

   o  Relation Name: up
   o  Description: Refers to a parent document in a hierarchy of
   o  Reference: [this document]


And this has been taken from:


  A URI that refers to a parent document in a hierarchy of documents.

  Undefined; this relation can be used for background processing or to provide
  extended functionality without displaying its value.

  Automated agents should take care when this relation crosses administrative
  domains (e.g., the URI has a different authority than the current document).
  Such agents should also take care to detect circular references.




Most of that is boilerplate (I know, because I copied it from some of the other
relations in the IANA registry) but if these link relations are being redefined
in this specification, why has so much been left out?

Indeed, why are these being redefined at all?

Why not point to the IANA link relations registry, and leave it at that?

I notice the following changelog entry:

   o  Removed specific location for the registry, since IANA seems to
      have its own ideas about that.

What does this mean?

The URI given in RFC4287 is:

This is now a 404.

We have the following page:

But this misses out a few link relations in the registry.

We have the following page:

Which 302 redirects to:

On 2009-02-07T04:13:01, I sent the following to

  On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 03:35:02AM +0000, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
  > The index at has been updated to point to that
  > page, rather than That version
  > should be coming down shortly.

  What about all the old links that exist to this page?

  I know that various places link to this document. Will you be putting in a HTTP
  redirect or are you doing this purposefully so that you can mark the old version
  as obsolete?

I still haven't received a reply.

> as the new registry procedure clearly says "specification required".

Which registry procedure?

> One way to achieve this would be to have a new chapter that takes over
> that role, and specified those 4 link relations which currently have no
> specification (maybe including the details that were present in the
> original link relation registry).

Why not defer to the IANA link relations registry?


Noah Slater,

Received on Sunday, 19 July 2009 15:36:29 UTC