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

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. 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.
> 
> 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
[...]

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?

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. 

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.

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?

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.

Cheers,

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/