- From: mca <mca@amundsen.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:20:13 -0400
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org Data" <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPW_8m7N3RZnO81xzhFvG7ipOZQAVSzgCqmdjOTMncW2eLyhWQ@mail.gmail.com>
IMO, yes, you SHOULD do this as a way to document practice rather than drive adoption. (standards follow, they don't lead). you can do much of the "debate" in the IETF link rel list itself, if that's important to you. and yes, you'll need some implementations to show that this is a good idea. i suspect you have that now, right? at any rate, posting a public effort to register can flush new ideas, competing adoption/implementations and help create consensus. mca +1.859.757.1449 skype: mca.amundsen http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com/mamund https://github.com/mamund http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeamundsen On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote: > > On 10 Aug 2013, at 18:14, mca <mca@amundsen.com> wrote: > > Now is the time to register a link relation value with the IANA. > > It takes limited effort, need not slow your momentum and will make it > easier to lead future development in this space. > > yes, though I think we should have a number of people together first to > back > the proposed link relation. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.3 > > My guess is that we would have better chance of success if we can show a > mailing > list where the issue was debated, a spec that describes the link relation > and > implementation that use it. > > > > On Aug 10, 2013 12:07 PM, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > >> >> On 10 Aug 2013, at 17:50, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> >> > On 8/9/13 8:34 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> >> The protected resource will show you where the acl (meta) data is with >> the header rel="meta" >> > I thought the consensus was: rel="acl" >> > >> > I guess, we are just going to have to support both, to be safe . >> >> There are still very few implementations, so this is the point where >> consensus can >> be reached at little cost. >> >> I don't think that this problem was discussed yet in a forum where the >> implementers >> were present. >> >> Henry >> >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Kingsley Idehen >> > Founder & CEO >> > OpenLink Software >> > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >> > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >> > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> >> > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > >
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 17:21:01 UTC