Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Chairs Solicit Proposals

On 09.02.2010 11:16, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
>>> Change proposal follows.
>>> Summary
>>> This change replaces the Wiki link relation registry with that
>>> defined in "Web Linking," an IETF draft proposed for Standards Track,
>>> while aligning HTML5's use of links with that described therein.
>> This seems relatively uncontroversial; I suggest we just go with the
>> usual lightweight bug process for this rather than the full-on Change
>> Proposal process and so on.
>> My only suggestion really would be that we get several different
>> people to exercise the registry to see how and whether it works in
>> practice. We could have a few people register the various HTML5
>> fields, and a few people register some rel values from the spec or
>> from the wiki, and see if the process is effective. If it is, then
>> referring to it seems like a no-brainer and I'd be happy to make the
>> appropriate changes.
> Sounds good to me.
> Note that the registry can only be tested once
> draft-nottingham-http-link-header has been approved by the IESG. Right
> now it's still in IETF LC (ending next week). See
> <>
> ...

That being said, the *predecessor* (the Atom link relation type 
registry) has been active for several years now and can be tested right 
away; it currently ~25 entries, the newest were earlier this year.
So if you want to test with a link relation that could apply to Atom as 
well, go ahead. rel=canonical seems to be a good candidate, having 
multiple implementations already (right?).


Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 09:54:04 UTC