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

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