Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Mike,

Please upload this draft with <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/> to 
allow further comments.

Mykyta

10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote:
> I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relation Types:
> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/
>
> per suggestions from Mykyta&  Julian:
> - added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to RFC5988
> - added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML,
> and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction
> - dropped the 2119 section
> - removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples;
> cleaned up the examples a bit, too.
> - modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in 5988
> - modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian
> (is this what you meant?)
>
> Julian:
> regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed
> "collection" link-rel-type...
> I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean
> to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be
> used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed),
> but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a
> hierarchy.
>
> Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks.
>
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com@mamund
> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
>
>
> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
> http://restfest.org
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>> On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote:
>>> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here:
>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/
>>>
>>> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this
>>> before I post the first submission to the IETF.
>>> ...
>> OK. Looks good so far.
>>
>> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? Do
>> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies?
>>
>> Editorial:
>>
>> - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords
>>
>> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may want
>> to reference "your" media types
>>
>> - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples
>>
>> - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the
>> actual section
>>
>> - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8.
>>
>>> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security
>>> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within
>>> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction.
>> As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues.
>>
>>>     Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries?
>>>     Infected Sites?
>>>     Pointing to malicious content?
>> ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem to
>> generic to any kind of following hyperlinks.
>>
>>> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker
>>> (another first for me<g>).
>>> ...
>> Best regards, Julian
>>