rel="meta" or rel="acl" ? was: Web Access Cntrl Spec?

On 10 Aug 2013, at 00:18, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

>> When talking about this with Alexandre Bertails he thought that rel="meta" was
>> not the right relation and that rel="acl" would be more correct.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It will be fixed.

We need to get those who have implementations to agree on this first. :-)

And I am not sure what forum is available where we can agree on edits to 
the acl ontolgy or the http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl wiki page, 
so I am sending this mail a bit widely around. The WebAccessControl wiki
page suggests that the RWW Community Group is the place to discuss this.

I suppose for the moment the WebAccessControl wiki page plays the role of a 
spec. It says: 

[[
  The client follows, for example, an HTTP header field:

  Link: <meta/profile.meta>; rel=meta
]]

Alexandre Bertails once argued that meta is too general, and that this should 
be an "acl" link. Neither "acl" nor "meta" are registered in the iana document
http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
which is I think where this needs to be registered.
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.1

For us to register this we should probably have something a bit more 
spec like than the wiki page. 

I also would like to add to the ontology
 - support for regular expressions on urls
 - a acl:include relation to include acls from other documents
 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 08:57:04 UTC