This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) Working Group Other specs in this tool
Quick access to LC-2111 LC-2113 LC-2114 LC-2115 LC-2117 LC-2118 LC-2120 LC-2121 LC-2122 LC-2123 LC-2124 LC-2127
Previous: LC-2127 Next: LC-2120
whilst our use of HTTP Link is right in Mark's view, the registration of rel="powder" probably isn't. Section 4.2 [2] of the draft says: "A Link relation is a way of indicating the semantics of a link. Link relations are not format-specific, and MUST NOT specify a particular format or media type that they are to be used with." I was concerned about this since rel="powder" /does/ indicate a particular format (i.e. POWDER). I raised this on the HTTP list and Jonathan Rees replied [3] that he thought this referred to the origin of the link, not its target. Mark said no - actually the intention is that /neither/ end of the link should be format-specific - that's the job of the MIME type. I said that we were wary of trying to register a new MIME type - after all, POWDER is either XML or RDF/OWL (semantic extension notwithstanding) and that HTML Profile meant we didn't /need/ to register either rel="powder" or a new MIME type. Well... that's true but we are talking about registering the @rel type so that argument rather loses potency! Mark pointed me to a doc [4] that is an entry point for a description of how we would register the POWDER Media type which actually looks pretty simple - being in a W3C Rec document means that IETF is likely to agree to the new type with little delay. To get to the point, Mark's recommendation is that we 1. Use a more generic @rel type of describedby (something other groups want as well btw) 2. Register a POWDER-specific Media type.