Re: [link-relations] app data wrt HTML usage, was: NEW APP DATA

Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Wed, 11 August 2010 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ian@hixie.ch>
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 197D43A6A55 for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 FY61+12qGJgw for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1053A6A4C for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A822C006B; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=hixie.ch; h=date:from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version: content-type; q=dns; s=hixie.ch; b=u7EsRZV2MxTBuveWzu9SJamJoCHQc dKdvmOEVJRofVxOFTQf5nZOccNBbA1/4apNtgK9aifq//LOFNWZzXp90fJmhpbR8 0TR9DrGaIaEKyvN80+4E+5ay0xqDpGxCoFMb7YKcnD45fZDBJ1x3isVuEhmsfAol fJP+cJgxiCm6b4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=hixie.ch; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version: content-type; s=hixie.ch; bh=H7qsy4EOrxj4iNEzbRapEIKOScA=; b=vbC nbbTCXh0l3ntvGUixOXvHGtzqYjMWH2aRgCflPrJq2E+AM6CL18Bq6GoNodxNtMD Wa08pa2hkGhDl4hHm0BhvWGsX1X8yU5/KpXjWAuFmI0LZSH1ERFi9pFp2FwAeC44 54OkbunXlmyGQ3/R9KyLUJMpaRtKUNUFgSnl470A=
Received: from ps20323.dreamhostps.com (ps20323.dreamhost.com [69.163.222.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: internal@index.hixie.ch) by homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48ED52C006A; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:24:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4C6267AF.9060609@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008110919220.22155@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008090401280.7470@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <9CDE7636-3E12-48AA-A351-FDD432112978@mnot.net> <1281459315.701.260.camel@chacal> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008101738070.22575@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4C61A834.40803@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008102043220.11992@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4C6267AF.9060609@gmx.de>
Content-Language: en-GB-hixie
Content-Style-Type: text/css
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: link-relations@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [link-relations] app data wrt HTML usage, was: NEW APP DATA
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, 11 Aug 2010 09:23:49 -0000

This thread is going off the topic of the field registrations, so I've 
only replied to the relevant parts here.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> a/@rel=stylesheet indeed is not implemented (nor precisely defined), 
> thus I have no problem with HTML validators pointing out that this is 
> likely an authoring mistake. I just don't see why the type registry 
> needs to contain this information.

Understood.


> > > > > - Unconvinced that the default of "no" for<link> is right. If 
> > > > > somebody defines a link relation, and it doesn't make sense 
> > > > > on<link>, then it appears that something is very wrong with the 
> > > > > proposed semantics of the link relation.
> > > > 
> > > > There are very few where this is the case, but I don't see why 
> > > > that would mean a relation where this is the case is wrong.
> > > 
> > > If there are few, then this implies the default should not be "no".
> > 
> > The "default" is merely a shorthand for not having to list every 
> > current relation and its new value; if you would rather I just list 
> > every relation I would be happy to do that.
> 
> Incorrect; it's also the default for new values.

Surely for new values we would want the people submitting registrations to 
consider how their relations will work with existing applications and thus 
they will explicitly say what the values should be?

I would not at all feel comfortable defaulting all future values to either 
"hyperlink", "external resource link", or "annotation link". Which one 
applies should be carefully considered in each case. If no consideration 
is made, the only safe answer IMHO is "not allowed". This argues strongly, 
again IMHO, that we absolutely must have the latter as one of the possible 
options, if we are to have this field at all.

At this point my assumption is that the field registration is being 
rejected and we will have to deal with it outside the registry.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'