[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard
Noah Slater wrote:
The only way that would work is if you were considering a document that existed
in multiple hierarchies, and you took the subject of "a" to be any direct parent
within that collection of hierarchies, instead of any parent in any hierarchy.
This an incorrect interpretation of the my registration.
I agree with that; I just wanted to point out that "a parent document"
is not necessarily going to convince people that it includes any
*ancestor*. It appears the use of "up" in CMIS therefore is incorrect
and needs to be replaced by something else (now including the Atom
Is it important that we clarify this? For any person that argues for that
interpretation, would it not suffice to argue out that the language is loose
enough that there is no reasonable way to claim one interpretation to the
exclusion of another. Maybe even linking to this email.
What do you think we should do?
I think it'll be sufficient to tune the text once "up" gets
re-registered when the new registry is created. In general this shows
that it's dangerous to register relations minted by somebody else
(HTML5) when that spec isn't yet stable.