- From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:32:49 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Al Brown <albertcbrown@us.ibm.com>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 09:04:40AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: >> For what it's worth, my thoughts were that this would represent a resource that >> was a direct parent of the resource. And by direct parent, I mean a parent that >> must necessarily be passed through if traversing the hierarchy. For the purpose >> of this discussion, however, I'm not sure my original intentions matter. > > Well, you did register the link relation, right? Well sure, but my experience lead me to believe that the situation I describe is the most common one. I was also aware of the vague nature of the description, fitting with the other relations, and a bonus for reasons I have described in a previous email. What I meant is, a post-hoc explanation of my thought process is hardly normative for the official registration. Hehe. >>> If you don't want to register multiple 'up-n' relations, consider defining the >>> relation type with an optional extension, such as: >>> >>> Link: <http://example.com>; rel="up"; level="2" >> >> I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most hierarchical relationships >> that people will want to express will be such that the level can be inferred >> directly from the URI. More over, I fail to understand what kind of UA interface >> would need or want this kind of detail. > > CMIS/AtomPub is an example where the hierarchy is not necessarily > reflected in the URIs, and that's why people want to use the "up" > relation. Sure, seems like a reasonable, and not unexpected, use. > Now that I realize that "up" does not refer to a specific hierarchy > level this may need to change, though... I'm not sure what this means. Before I made my application to IANA, I did took the time to look around at what seemed to be the status-quo. I was definitely swayed by HTML5 having chosen this relationship name. And despite me not liking the use of "up up up" for depth, I do not think this contradicts the existing IANA registration. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:33:30 UTC