Re: Input on request for link relation

[Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In line with comments I've made in other threads I think it makes sense for us to limit link relation discussions to the generic relation itself rather than any specific implementation of it.

Several relations would need a similar treatment.

For example:

edit: An IRI of an editable Member Entry. When appearing within an atom:entry, the href IRI can be used to retrieve, update and delete the Resource represented by that Entry.

BTW, what would be the generic link relation to indicate an AtomPub collection (only the service document is registered at IANA) ? 

 

In terms of the relation, I think the description could be improved by dropping references to entries, Atom and RSS. It is conceivable for example that someone would want to be notified of an update to an HTML page (I'm thinking about this currently for status updates to HTML renderings of virtual machine resources) or indeed some other arbitrary resource. If we [continue to] allow relations to be bound to protocols in spite of the availability of content types and/or URI relations which are fit for the purpose we're going to back ourselves into a corner before we know it.

I agree. We need a better policy for rel values. Currently, it seems that new rel values are added to the IANA link registry whenever a new RFC is adopted. These relationships could have a much broader scope and shouldn't be bound to particular protocols. 

Hadrien