- From: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
- Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 15:03:11 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <21606dcf0909060603g70a69314u878ab6d2ef939b2e@mail.gmail.com>
Mark, The current Web Linking draft (draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06) specifies a 'Link Relation Type Registry'. Would you be so kind as to drop the word 'Type' from this title as it is superfluous and could some mapping between "link relations" and "media types". The existing registry is called 'Atom Link Relations' and has a short name of link-relations (http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/). I propose that we simply drop "Atom" from the title and run with "Link Relations" in light of the fact that they are generic. Further, I propose that the existing registry be used in place as compatibility with Atom is retained and there are a number of resources that link to it currently - this request should be reflected in the draft. There is enough confusion already as an out of date HTML version<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/>is maintained at the same location (last updated 2008-05-20) in addition to the XHTML<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml>, XML <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml> and TXT <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.txt>versions (last updated 2009-02-20). The reference to RFC4287 in the header of this registry should also be updated to the "Web Linking" RFC (to be assigned). I hope it is not too late to accommodate these requests in the next revision as I believe that keeping this as simple as possible will facilitate adoption and reduce confusion. Sam
Received on Sunday, 6 September 2009 13:03:49 UTC