Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: Relation name: "next"

"Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org> Thu, 02 September 2010 22:14 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 D6D2D3A6969 for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, 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 Jxb3vmVC3PCw for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jay.w3.org (ssh.w3.org [128.30.52.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4053A6874 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=MikeSmith.local) by jay.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mike@jay.w3.org>) id 1OrI3r-00074b-Fh; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:15:12 -0400
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:15:09 +0900
From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <20100902221508.GG62450@sideshowbarker>
References: <20100902081410.GD58403@sideshowbarker> <31E56538-C14F-40A7-92FC-C2D05E6AF7E1@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <31E56538-C14F-40A7-92FC-C2D05E6AF7E1@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/r6056+poontang (2010-03-02 11:31:36+09:00)
Cc: link-relations@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [link-relations] 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: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:14:47 -0000

Hi Mark,

> @2010-09-02 21:34 +1000:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Just to start discussion, I'll give initial thoughts in one e-mail, for now.
> 
> One general observation - relations that are potentially usable
> in formats other than HTML should be defined in such a way that
> they're not HTML specific.

That's a good point.

> The only reason I mention this is
> that the specification links go directly into HTML-specific
> text, without any definition of semantics, etc.
> 
> E.g., with 'alternate', the link goes to:
> 
> > 4.12.3.1 Link type "alternate"
> > 
> > The alternate keyword may be used with link, a, and area elements.
[...]
> It would be helpful (especially since alternate is already used
> by Atom) if this were rewritten to something like:
> 
> > 4.12.3.1 Link type "alternate"
> > 
> > The 'alternate' link type gives alternate representations of the current document.
> > 
> > In HTML documents, the alternate keyword may be used with link, a, and area elements.
> > 
> > The meaning of this keyword depends on the values of the other attributes.
> > 
> > If the element is a link element and the rel attribute also contains the keyword stylesheet
> [...]
> 
> See what I mean?

Yep

So as far as HTML WG process goes, the way to address this would
be for somebody to raise a bug proposing that the first paragraph
of each link-type section should be a general description of the
semantics of that link type, without specific reference to HTML.

I will either raise such a bug myself, or will work with other
members of the group to get it raised.

> Beyond that, I see three groups of relations here;
> 
> 1) Updating HTML4 registrations, including:
>   next / alternate / bookmark / index / prev / stylesheet / help
> 
> There shouldn't be any issues with these. The only thing I'd
> note is that 'alternate' is also used by Atom, but it's already
> registered by HTML4, so it shouldn't be a problem. 

OK

> 2) Registering new relations, including:
>   archives / icon / noreferer / tag / pingback / prefetch / sidebar / external / author / nofollow / search 
> 
> 'pingback' and 'search' refer to external specifications. We'll need to talk through the implications of that.

Yeah, agreed

> 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?

No, I personally don’t think there is. So this is another for
which I will make sure we get a bug raised.

> The others need to be coordinated with the individuals who
> originally registered the relations -- Noah Slater for up, and
> myself for first and last. I don't think there will be any
> problem for mine, at least.

OK, so I’ll take that as an action item on me to contact Noah and
give him a heads-up about this.

  --Mike

> On 02/09/2010, at 6:14 PM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> 
> > Relation Name:
> >  next
> > 
> > Description:
> >  Indicates that the current document is a part of a series, and
> >  that the next document in the series is the referenced document.
> > 
> > Reference:
> >  http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-next
> > 
> > Notes:
> >  Template to be added to W3C HTML5 specification before
> >  publication of next Working Draft
> > 
> > -- 
> > Michael(tm) Smith
> > http://people.w3.org/mike
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > link-relations mailing list
> > link-relations@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

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