Re: service link rel registration

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>]

Brian Smith wrote:
> It seems like @rel='service' is redundant since it can be done using 
> @type='application/atomsvc+xml'. What is the difference between the 
> following?
>
> <link href='...' rel='related' type='application/atomsvc+xml'/>
> <link href='...' rel='service' type='application/atomsvc+xml'/>
> <link href='...' rel='service'/>
>
> My understanding that the HTML 5 spec editor (Ian Hickson) had decided 
> against including @rel='service' in HTML 5 for this reason. Since 
> AtomPub service discovery from HTML is a big use case for this, maybe it 
> would be better to avoid using rel='service' and instead use whatever 
> the HTML 5 working group can agree on.

Ian Hickson may have that opinion, but the HTML WG certainly hasn't made 
any decision related to this yet.

The bigger question is: who should own the link relation registry? IMHO, 
HTML is the wrong place as link relations are very relevant outside the 
HTML context.

Mark Nottingham's Internet Draft (HTTP Link header) proposes a generic 
IANA registry, just like it's being used for Atom link relations (-> 
short names for registered relations, but URIs are allowed as well). It 
seems to me that his is the right approach, and expect that topic to be 
discussed over on the HTML WG in the future.

BR, Julian