[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Input on request for link relation
On 11/09/2009, at 11:17 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
One nitpick about the process is that it seems a request can be
denied with a suggestion for another relation (for example we might
prefer to use something like "push" or "notif[y|ier|ication|
ications" rather than "hub" for this one) but then that would
require restarting the process where it should proceed to
registration immediately if the change is accepted by the applicant.
Yes, but is the overhead really that onerous?
I also question the relevance of the "reference" field in the
registry as this links relations to implementations which I think we
agree is a bad thing - the registry should capture all the necessary
semantics without reliance on external references. It may be
interesting to list zero or more implementations of the relation
(that is, make the "reference" field optional as well and allow
others to add themselves to it), however I'm not sure the
maintenance load is worth the effort.
Not to implementations, to the source documents for the registrations
(which IANA likes to see in registries, AIUI, for paper trail etc).
It's true that the pre-populated entries have a lot of references to
formats, but that's an artefact of history, not the direction we'll
move in going forward.
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/