- From: Bill de hOra <bill@dehora.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:01:09 +0000
- To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
- CC: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
> (opaque URI-based) rel so I have proposed class="action" be added for <link rel="stop@occi" where "occi" is registered as for use by occi. IOW allow the link registry to define rel scopes. The url or clash thing sucks and I don't want someone rolling up with a curies/qnames or some other XML macrocrap proposal for Atom. Bill Sam Johnston wrote: > Another requirement I've stumbled on is the ability to group links. > For OCCI for example we want to give users the ability to create their > own actions (eg start, stop, restart) which will be advertised in the > HTTP headers and/or HTML HEAD. Currently each action has it's own > (opaque URI-based) rel so I have proposed class="action" be added for > grouping. Alternatively we could do rel="[http://purl.org/occi/] > action" and refine the action with one or more custom attributes (type > is not really appropriate here, nor when advertising protocol > endpoints like SSH and RDP which is anoter problem we ran into). > > Pagination (eg first, last, next, previous) is another potentially > interesting group. Though the semantics are mostly predefined one > could envisage links like "next 100", "next 1000". > > Sam on iPhone > > On 12/11/2009, at 7:18, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> >> wrote: >>> On 16/09/2009, at 7:46 PM, Sam Johnston wrote: >>>> Would it be possible then to support multiple references so that >>>> people >>>> can see at a glance that a given relation is implemented as >>>> described in >>>> multiple formats (rather than just the first format that happened to >>>> register it)? May well not be worth the maintenance effort. >>> How about adding a new field for references to more information >>> about how a >>> relation is used in a particular context (scoped by context media >>> type)? >>> >>> E.g., >>> >>> References regarding use in specific contexts: >>> text/html: [HTML5] >>> application/atom+xml: [RFC4287] >>> >> Yes, that sounds like a great idea. And vaguely familiar: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/ >> 0699.html >> >> Thanks, >> -joe >
Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 11:20:17 UTC