Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org> wrote:

>
> Regardless, I don't believe a flat registry with one document per rel type
> is going
> to be sufficient. There should be a mechanism within the registry to
> specify per-media-type
> 'clarifications' for each rel type. This is particularly important in the
> case of new
> formats that come along later, like JSON has in the past couple years, that
> weren't around when a rel value was registered.
>
> For example, a new media-type Foo comes along in two years, wants to use
> the link header and all the registered relations make sense except 'up',
> how would
> that be noted in the registry?
>

There's also the option of not listing any standards (except perhaps as
informative references). The registry would give a plain english meaning to
each of the terms and the standards referencing it would describe the
nuances.

Sam