Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership Change Proposal discussion

While I admire a lot of the good work that has gone into "Web Linking", I must point out that in the decade+ since HTML4 (or 4.01), wiki-based methods of researching, exploring, brainstorming, proposing, testing, implementing, and iterating on rel values has actually served the web design and development communities reasonably well, with a good variety of rel values being published and interoperably implemented, whereas in that same decade+ time period, IETF/W3C-based processes have been largely absent or stagnant in terms of rel value development (with a few notable exceptions like Atom).

Thus I do think in general we have a decade+ of experience that for this particular space of standards/extensions, community wiki-based methods have been superior (in direct contradiction of the assertion that "may not be a workable solution in the long run" - 10+ years is not a bad "long run" frankly), and I would hate to lose that moving forward.

I'm not saying that wiki-based methods have been perfect by any means, nor am I saying that they couldn't be improved. However, they've been the best we have seen *in practice*, and that's worth a lot IMHO.

However, as I said, a lot of the good work has gone into "Web Linking", and would like to see the improvements/changes proposed there pursued  within the communities that have been carrying rel forward in the past 10+ years (primarily microformats.org), so that they can be evaluated/critiqued/iterated by those who have been working on them to date, and incorporated into the specs there as well.

Thanks,

Tantek


-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:50:54 
To: Mark Nottingham<mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Paul Cotton<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>; public-html@w3.org<public-html@w3.org>
Subject: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership Change Proposal discussion


Thanks for the submission. I have recorded it on the issue status page: 
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-027


I'd like to hear comments from the Working Group on this approach. Does anyone think it is unacceptable? Does anyone think it is inferior to what is in the draft? Does anyone have other ideas?

Regards,
Maciej

On 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. 
> 
> Rationale
> 
> The link relation types defined in HTML5 are not specific to that format; their semantics can be reused in other formats, as well as by applications other than Web browsing. It is confusing for users to, potentially, have a relation type mean one thing in one application, whilst meaning something different when used in a different context, or in a different format.
> 
> Furthermore, using a wiki to register relation types, while attractive due to its simplicity, may not be a workable solution in the long run, because the criteria for inclusion, ratification, and deprecation are not well-defined. 
> 
> This change addresses these issues by leveraging the IANA registry proposed in "Web Linking." 
> 
> A few notes to address concerns raised previously:
> - Nothing prevents us setting up a Web form that allows people to make registration submissions, thereby streamlining and mostly automating the process of registering a new relation type.
> - The registry is extensible, so that HTML5 and others can add new attributes (e.g., what links the relation type is legal on).
> - The registry will be available in a machine-readable form, so that people can incorporate it in validators, etc. The machine-readable form is NOT available on the Web (to avoid load issues, such as those seen with W3C's DTD hosting); rather, they're available on a mailing list, so that vendors can redistribute it as they see fit.
> 
> Details
> 
> 1) Define the link, a, and area elements in terms of the Web Linking framework; i.e., in terms of "target IRI", "context IRI", "relation type" and "target parameters."
> 2) Change the relation types defined in "Link types" to be registrations or references to existing relations (as appropriate) in the Link Relation Type Registry.
> 3) Add fields to the Link Relation Field Registry for "Effect on HTML5 Link Element" and "Effect on HTML5 A and Area Elements", and populate registrations as appropriate.
> 4) Change "Other link types" to refer to "Web Linking" for registration procedures.
> 5) Review initial registry contents in Web Linking to assure that semantics defined there align with HTML5's.
> 
> Impact
> 
> Positive Effects
> 
> - Link relations will be usable across formats, and aligned with Atom's already existant relation types
> - Well-defined registration process with change controllers, conflict resolution, long-term maintenance
> - Avoiding load problems on a centralised HTTP registry (see Web Linking draft for details)
> 
> Negative Effects
> 
> - None known.
> 
> Conformance Classes Changes
> 
> None known.
> 
> Risks
> 
> Web Linking is subject to IETF Standards Track review and RFC publication, which may incur delays. However, it has support from Area Directors and has already been through on Last Call successfully (it will likely go to Second Last Call to vet changes made to address concerns raised by HTML5 WG members).
> 
> References
> 
> -  "Web Linking" - <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/01/2010, at 3:28 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> 
>>> I own ACTION-160 [1] to work on a change proposal for Issue-27 [2].
>> 
>> Mark Nottingham has proposed that we could deal with this issue by endorsing the material in Section 6 "IANA Considerations" of the Web Linking draft [3].  The WG is discussing this on the thread at [4].
>> 
>> I believe the next step is for Mark and me to submit a formal change proposal based on [5] that points to [4].  We will try to do this before Jan 21.
>> 
>> /paulc
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/160 
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27

>> [3] http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt

>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0496.html 
>> [5] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposalTemplate

>> 
>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

>

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 03:09:31 UTC