- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:22:00 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hmm. That section would merely be a verbatim repeat of the registry, since by definition there isn't any more information to add. How about adding a note to each of them to indicate it's grandfathered in? E.g., Notes: this relation pre-exists this specification, and did not indicate a reference. Cheers, On 19/07/2009, at 10:39 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> FYI >> ... > > Draft 06 adds the "up" relation, for which apparently there is no > spec, just a registration entry in the Atom Link Relations Registry > (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link- > relations.xhtml>). This is similar to "first", "last", and > "payment", which aren't new in draft 06. > > It might be a good idea to clarify that those four link relations > are indeed (re-)defined by this specification, as the new registry > procedure clearly says "specification required". > > 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). > > BR, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 04:22:40 UTC