Re: Input on request for link relation [ w/ proposed modifications to link draft ]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Kris Zyp <> wrote:
> I am not necessarily opposed to the addition of a
> simple/non-namespaced relation, but it still seems like it should be
> necessary to have some the relationship clearly articulated enough to
> delineate between "hub" (or whatever relation name that is used) and
> the existing "monitor" relation. A developer (like me) should be able
> to make an informed selection between the two for other notification
> formats.

It looks like the "hub" relation might see substantial running code as
well as rough consensus.

At least, that's supposedly one of the good parts of the IETF. The
main bad part is an amoral attitude regarding software patents, to the
point that some Areas operate on the assumption that every participant
has cross-licensed everyone else's patents, so that the industry
status quo is preserved. In the Applications Area, I think an upfront
royalty-free policy should be required (I would be surprised to find
my employer, Mozilla Corporation, disagreeing). When I see patents
filed on penetrating glimpses into the obvious[1], my sympathy for
those suffering tedious namespace arguments suddenly evaporates.

I've changed my position, and I do not support the "hub" relation. If
all of this technology were part of an RF Internet, in letter and
spirit, I feel this group could have a more productive conversation.



Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 02:08:12 UTC