- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:52:40 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net
Noah Slater wrote: > ... > Indeed, why are these being redefined at all? > > Why not point to the IANA link relations registry, and leave it at that? > ... Because the registry is being replaced; and the new registry has a policy of "specification required" (IMHO). > ... >> as the new registry procedure clearly says "specification required". > > Which registry procedure? > ... <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06#section-6.2>. >> 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? Again, the Atom link relations registry is getting replaced by a new registry. BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 19 July 2009 15:53:29 UTC