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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 11 August 2010 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 BABF33A6857 for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.397, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 7O3BKXyAyJpv for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 480D33A6A6F for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2010 10:10:48 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.147]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp023) with SMTP; 11 Aug 2010 12:10:48 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+r9rxyJ8erJu2TGkn2ShC5yiBfHojO13h8y3ErvQ fOzxdYgCmXc+vu
Message-ID: <4C62771B.4040603@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:10:35 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
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> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008110919220.22155@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008110919220.22155@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
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 10:10:19 -0000

On 11.08.2010 11:24, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> This thread is going off the topic of the field registrations, so I've
> only replied to the relevant parts here.

Indeed.

> ..
>> 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?

Yes, but the thing we do not agree on is the level of detail required.

The application data registry was created to deal with the use case of 
distinguishing between links and external resources, for instance, so a 
client knows what to archive or to download for offline access.

I think this is a good use case, and it covers *most* of what you're 
looking for.

> 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.

See above: by defining the flag in general terms instead of 
HTML-specific terms, the question simply goes away.

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

Again, please consider simplifying the application data, as originally 
discussed.

Best regards, Julian