Re: [link-relations] [opensearch:393] Registering the 'search' link relation type

["Michael(tm) Smith" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

> Mike, are you requesting the link with the fragid on purpose?

No, just inadvertently copied and pasted the URL with the fragid instead of
the one without (sorry, was in a kind of a hurry yesterday to get mail sent
before the battery ran out on my laptop).

> Clinton and I seem to agree that going without makes more sense.

Yeah, I agree as well -- sorry for the confusion.

  --Mike

Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>, 2010-11-04 11:46 +1100:

> Mike, are you requesting the link with the fragid on purpose? Clinton and I seem to agree that going without makes more sense.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> On 04/11/2010, at 3:45 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> 
> > Updated request (in full):
> > 
> >  Relation Name:
> >    search
> > 
> >  Description:
> >    Gives a link to a resource that can be used to search through
> >    the current document and its related pages.
> > 
> >  Reference:
> >    http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Autodiscovery_in_HTML.2FXHTML
> > 
> > DeWitt Clinton <[e-mail]>, 2010-11-02 22:01 -0700:
> > 
> >> Yes, please.
> >> 
> >> -DeWitt
> >> 
> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> OK. If that's the case, should the registration just have:
> >>> 
> >>>> Reference:
> >>>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> ?
> >>> 
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 03/11/2010, at 3:58 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> If the designated experts are comfortable with that approach — and it
> >>> sounds like you might be, otherwise you wouldn't have asked — I'd personally
> >>> prefer that, considering the 'search' relation name is used in multiple
> >>> contexts for the same purpose, not exclusively HTML(5).
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thanks for asking,
> >>>> 
> >>>> -DeWitt
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>> Thanks, DeWitt.
> >>>> 
> >>>> One thing; I'm wondering if it makes more sense to list the OpenSearch
> >>> link directly as the reference, rather than going through the HTML5 one.
> >>>> 
> >>>> E.g., the registration could be:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Relation Name:
> >>>> search
> >>>> 
> >>>> Description:
> >>>> Gives a link to a resource that can be used to search through
> >>>> the current document and its related pages.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Reference:
> >>>> 
> >>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Autodiscovery_in_HTML.2FXHTML
> >>>> 
> >>>> Notes:
> >>>> See also: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-search
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thoughts? Mike?
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 03/11/2010, at 3:21 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> No objection at all, (speaking as unofficial spec editor).  Very glad
> >>> to see this happen, and thank you to Michael Smith and the W3C HTML WG for
> >>> making the proposal.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> That URL is stable, and has not changed in several years, and we would
> >>> of course be sure to preserve it with a redirect in the event anything ever
> >>> moved.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> That said, the full URL appears truncated in the registration
> >>> application.  It currently reads:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Autodiscovery_in_HTML.2FXH
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Should be:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Autodiscovery_in_HTML.2FXHTML
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Thanks, Mark!
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -DeWitt
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>> Hello OpenSearchers,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I'm acting as a Designated Expert for the IANA Link Relation Type
> >>> registry, defined by RFC5988 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988>.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We've had a request <http://paramsr.us/tracker/issue18> from the W3C
> >>> HTML WG to register the 'search' link relation type.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Since OpenSearch has defined the 'search' relation type, and HTML5
> >>> refers to your specification to define its semantics, we wanted to make sure
> >>> this registration was OK with the OpenSearch community before proceeding. Do
> >>> you have any objections to them doing so?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Additionally, we (the Designated Experts) wanted to double-check with
> >>> you that the reference they give is a) appropriate, and b) stable. I.e.,
> >>> it's not going to change gratuitously.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We'd appreciate a response as soon as possible, so that we can proceed
> >>> with the registration.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> 

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike