IETF Logo Mail Archive

[link-relations] where to spec the "license" link relation [was: NEW RELATION REQUEST: Relation name: "next"]

"Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org> Wed, 06 October 2010 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@jay.w3.org>
X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239D53A6C91 for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3V0VBvUIDqDd for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jay.w3.org (ssh.w3.org [128.30.52.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009AF3A70E0 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=c-98-223-102-218.hsd1.in.comcast.net) by jay.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mike@jay.w3.org>) id 1P3Vvk-0006GM-Sh; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:29:21 -0400
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:29:20 +0900
From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <20101006152920.GE81427@sideshowbarker>
References: <20100902081410.GD58403@sideshowbarker> <31E56538-C14F-40A7-92FC-C2D05E6AF7E1@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <31E56538-C14F-40A7-92FC-C2D05E6AF7E1@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/r6134+poontang (2010-08-25 00:30:49+09:00)
Cc: link-relations@ietf.org
Subject: [link-relations] where to spec the "license" link relation [was: NEW RELATION REQUEST: Relation name: "next"]
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations>
List-Post: <mailto:link-relations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:28:23 -0000

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 2010-09-02 21:34 +1000:

> 3) Updating registrations from other sources, including:
>   license / up / last / first
> 
> These might need a bit more discussion, especially license,
> which is currently defined by RFC4946. Is there any reason that
> its definition isn't adequate for HTML5?

After some further thought about this, I think the reason is to
keep the definition at point of use in the HTML5 spec unless
there's a really compelling need not to.

I personally would not feel terrifically confident trying to argue
that readers of the HTML5 spec would be particularly well-served
by being required to read a separate protocol spec -- one that is
arguably relatively obscure and one in which the definition of the
"license" link relation is a relatively small part -- rather than
just having a definition at point of use in the HTML5 spec.

Another suggested way to handle this would seem to be to leave the
text in the HTML5 spec and RFC4946 as-is, but to:

  1. Have somebody create a tiny Internet Draft that provides a
     general explanation of what the "license" link relation is.

  2. Have that ID cite both the HTML5 spec and RFC4946 for details
     about how the "license" link relation is used in the
     technologies defined by those two specs.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email