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

Hi Henry,

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:

>
> 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. :-)
>

+1


>
> 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


+1 to "acl" instead of "meta".


>
>
> 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/
>
>