Re: Link: relation registry and 303

On 30/01/2009, at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
> especting the httpRange-14 rule is important - what breaks? Why?  
> What clients? (This is a genuine plea, one I've made previously, for  
> information, not a challenge.) httpRange-14 still encounters heavy  
> resistance from well-informed people after four years. It needs  
> better marketing.
>
> Some anecdotes would really help me here. The question "what  
> concrete problem does it solve" is one I have trouble answering. I  
> can make up stories, talk about communication friction and so on,  
> but the abstract answers are not very convincing. I liked the  
> bookmarking scenario you started on the call, and would like to hear  
> more about it.

This is what I'm still trying to figure out.


>> I would note that it would in fact be great for everything at IANA  
>> to have URIs which work in the linked data world.  All kinds of  
>> technology would benefit from having URIs for IANA concepts.
>> It would also be a good example for governments etc all over the  
>> world.
>>
>> However, if not, in the meantime, while the IANA does not wish to  
>> be compliant with the
>> linked data architecture, one could simply replace the iana.org
>> domain name with w3.org and run a compliant registry there.
>> So a possibility would be for Mark's draft to replace the namespace  
>> for
>> describedBy in this way.
>
> This sounds like a good compromise. I'll be interested to hear what  
> Mark says. Putting it in W3C space has other benefits as well, such  
> as being closer to where HTML, XHTML, RDFa, and POWDER - basically  
> all the specs that might make use of it - are maintained. And I have  
> found precedent for normative non-IANA URIs in RFCs (3651 and 4452),  
> so it's not out of the question.

This isn't a good resolution for me. Having an IETF standards-track  
document create a non-IANA registry is extremely unconventional, at  
the least, and it brings change control issues into play. 3651 and  
4452 are Informational, not Standards-Track.


> (A different compromise would be for the Link: relation URI to be  
> defined to denote/identify a document that describes the relation...)

If you'd like the angels to dance in that particular fashion, I don't  
think it will be harmful.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 23:53:21 UTC