Re: Input on request for link relation

> In line with comments I've made in other threads I think it makes sense for
> us to limit link relation discussions to the generic relation itself rather
> than any specific implementation of it.

Several relations would need a similar treatment.

For example:

*edit:* An IRI of an editable Member Entry. When appearing within an
> atom:entry, the href IRI can be used to retrieve, update and delete the
> Resource represented by that Entry.

BTW, what would be the generic link relation to indicate an AtomPub
collection (only the service document is registered at IANA) ?

> In terms of the relation, I think the description could be improved by
> dropping references to entries, Atom and RSS. It is conceivable for example
> that someone would want to be notified of an update to an HTML page (I'm
> thinking about this currently for status updates to HTML renderings of
> virtual machine resources) or indeed some other arbitrary resource. If we
> [continue to] allow relations to be bound to protocols in spite of the
> availability of content types and/or URI relations which are fit for the
> purpose we're going to back ourselves into a corner before we know it.

I agree. We need a better policy for rel values. Currently, it seems that
new rel values are added to the IANA link registry whenever a new RFC is
adopted. These relationships could have a much broader scope and shouldn't
be bound to particular protocols.


Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 13:58:05 UTC