RE: HTTP Link, rel="powder" cf. rel="describedby"

Sounds good to me, as we are describing something. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:parcher@fosi.org] 
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:58 AM
> 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 09:29:36 UTC