Re: FW: @rel type 'describedby'

Dear Ms Cotton,

It has been a while since we received any communication from you 
concerning the proposed inclusion of 'describedby' in the Atom registry. 
I understand that there are a number of obvious potential reasons for 
this, the absence of an updated POWDER document in the public domain 
being the most obvious one.

We are in the very final stages of preparing for a transition request to 
Proposed Recommendation - it is only after that when the document that 
includes the describedby registration details will be formally published 
in w3.org/TR space. For now it is available with W3C Member access at  
[1]. We also note the citation of this document (at its presumed future 
URI) and use of describedby in a recently published Internet Draft [2].

On behalf of the POWDER WG, I'd be grateful for any update you may be 
able to offer.

Thank you.

Phil.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#appD
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-01

-- 
Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/



Michelle Cotton wrote:
> Dear Mr. Archer,
>
> My name is Michelle Cotton and your message has been passed to me by Barbara Roseman.
> I would like to verify what you are requesting to register so that I can provide the correct registration procedures.
>
> Are you looking for a registration in the following registry?
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>
> Thank you,
>
> Michelle Cotton
> IANA
>
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:29:05 -0800
> To: <barbara.roseman@iana.org>
> Subject: @rel type 'describedby'
>
> Dear Ms Roseman,
>
> I was given your name following a conversation at a W3C meeting last
> week. I write on behalf of the W3C POWDER Working Group [1] to request
> the registration of a new link relationship type as follows:
>
> Relationship type: describedby
> Purpose: to link a resource to a description that applies to
>           that resource
> Documentation: http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking
>
> The Recommendations Track Document 'POWDER: Description Resources'
> (cited above) was published this week as a (second) Last Call and we
> noted that we do not expect to issue a separate call for implementations
> before seeking transition to Proposed Recommendation next month. I am
> also writing to IETF to register the MIME types documented in the same
> place.
>
> Background
> ==========
> The Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) defines a method by
> which descriptions may be applied to multiple resources, typically
> 'everything on a Web site.' The link relationship will be used to point
> from those resources to such a description, either in HTML link elements
> or through HTTP Link elements (currently under discussion through Mark
> Nottingham's Internet Draft [2] and, I understand, expected to be
> updated later this week and moved to RFC status subject to comments
> received).
>
> The relationship A 'describedby' B does not imply that B is a POWDER
> file (the MIME type does that), simply that B provides a description of
> A. The representation returned from A and B is not constrained by the
> relationship.
>
> Wider context
> =============
> I believe it is also appropriate to outline the broader context in which
> this request is made. There has been a good deal of discussion amongst
> various W3C Working Groups for more than a year on how @rel types should
> be managed. Various solutions have been proposed: the use of HTML 4's
> profile attribute being one, writing new types into a wiki being another
> and so on. Consensus has been hard to reach. At the recent W3C Tech
> Plenary, several groups, including POWDER, took part in a discussion
> with the HTML 5 WG on this issue. Although it would be wrong to suggest
> that there was unanimity on the way forward, there was general consensus
> that registering new relationship types should be a relatively
> lightweight process but clearly not so lightweight that it became
> unworkable.
>
> Whether IANA decides to approve the POWDER WG's request to register
> 'describedby' or not, the process of registration is therefore something
> of significant interest beyond any one WG.
>
> I have not copied this to POWDER's public mailing list as I am unsure
> whether that would be acceptable to you. If it is, I would be grateful
> if you would cc public-powderwg@w3.org in your reply.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Phil Archer
> POWDER WG Chair.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>

Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 10:53:28 UTC