Re: IANA Link Relations Registry (draft-nottingham-http-link-header)

It's not superfluous; there's a difference between a concrete relation  
and the type of that relation.


On 06/09/2009, at 11:03 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:

> 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 is maintained at the same location (last  
> updated 2008-05-20) in addition to the XHTML, XML and 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 05:39:43 UTC