Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection

[mike amundsen <[e-mail]>]

ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML.

thanks for the assist.

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
http://restfest.org



On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:01, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 10.08.2011 6:55, mike amundsen wrote:
>>
>> Mykyta:
>>
>> Ok, will do.
>>
>> One procedural Q. I will be submitting both the TXT and the XML file.
>> I assume the file names should be:
>> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.txt
>> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml
>
> Yes, the TXT version you generate with xml2rfc and supply there is
> obligatory; XML version isn't, but you may also upload it.
>
> Please, before uploading, fix the Apps-discuss list to link-relations list
> in editorial note after Abstract.
>
> Mykyta
>
>>
>> IOW, i supply the "00" and i supply the file extension.
>>
>> thanks.
>>
>> mca
>> http://amundsen.com/blog/
>> http://twitter.com@mamund
>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
>>
>>
>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
>> http://restfest.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 23:39, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[e-mail]>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>
>