- From: Smith, Kevin, \(R&D\) VF-Group <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:01:10 +0200
- To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@fosi.org>, "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
- Cc: "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>
+1 to 'describdBy'; makes sense to me :) -----Original Message----- From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer Sent: 01 August 2008 09:58 To: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich Cc: Public POWDER Subject: Re: HTTP Link, rel="powder" cf. rel="describedby" Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote: > Hi, > > So what is your thought on what the rel type could be? Rel="meta" > seems intuitiv, but is not regsitered. That's a whole other can of worms - I've just written to a bunch of W3C folk about how a common view of registering @rel types should be done. > Is there such a thing as rel="description" or something similar? No - but 'describedby' is in our POWDER-s vocab and, I think the GRDDL folk would like it too. P >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer >> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:21 AM >> To: Public POWDER >> Subject: HTTP Link, rel="powder" cf. rel="describedby" >> >> >> I had a (very good) meeting with Mark Nottingham yesterday. >> He's Yahoo's point man at the IETF and the person behind the HTTP >> Link Header internet draft to which our DR doc refers [1]. >> >> He seems happy that there is a good deal of consensus around most of >> the important issues that draft raises. The area where there is >> currently less consensus is how various relationship types should be >> registered and maintained. This goes way beyond POWDER in terms of >> scope but it clearly affects us since our docs talk about using >> rel="powder." >> We've followed the current recommendations by using a profile >> document. >> >> Bottom line - with a bit of political negotiation - Mark believes >> that HTTP link will be able to progress along the route to RFC within >> the time line we need. >> >> But... whilst our use of HTTP Link is right in Mark's view, the >> registration of rel="powder" probably isn't. Section 4.2 [2] of the >> draft says: >> >> "A Link relation is a way of indicating the semantics of a link. >> Link relations are not format-specific, and MUST NOT specify a >> particular format or media type that they are to be used with." >> >> I was concerned about this since rel="powder" /does/ indicate a >> particular format (i.e. POWDER). I raised this on the HTTP list and >> Jonathan Rees replied [3] that he thought this referred to the origin >> of the link, not its target. Mark said no - actually the intention is >> that /neither/ end of the link should be format-specific - that's the >> job of the MIME type. >> >> I said that we were wary of trying to register a new MIME type - >> after all, POWDER is either XML or RDF/OWL (semantic extension >> notwithstanding) and that HTML Profile meant we didn't /need/ to >> register either rel="powder" or a new MIME type. Well... >> that's true but we are talking about registering the @rel type so >> that argument rather loses potency! >> >> Mark pointed me to a doc [4] that is an entry point for a description >> of how we would register the POWDER Media type which actually looks >> pretty simple - being in a W3C Rec document means that IETF is likely >> to agree to the new type with little delay. >> >> To get to the point, Mark's recommendation is that we >> >> 1. Use a more generic @rel type of describedby (something other >> groups want as well btw) >> >> 2. Register a POWDER-specific Media type. I guess ours would be >> >> application/powder+xml >> >> and >> >> application/powder-s+xml >> >> ??? >> >> Neither of these registration steps is particularly hard to do. >> >> In terms of the WG's process, I suggest we teat this as a Last Call >> comment and deal with it when we resume in September - *unless* - >> Matt - >> you advise that /if/ we were to make such a change we'd require a >> new LC version, in which case we may need to take a couple of >> resolutions by e-mail before those docs you're working on are fully >> published (er, which I believe is scheduled for a week today) >> >> Phil. >> >> >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02 >> [2] >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-0 >> 2#section-4.2 >> [3] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JulSep/0122.html >> [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype >> >> >>
Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 09:01:57 UTC