Re: [link-relations] [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Wed, 31 August 2011 04:32 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9988C21F8C30; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YxUS06Pg0zSY; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D420921F8C31; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so444190bka.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=xcYzjLjljBfhrsh2aC3tpqwZuSZCBpOJ1jaj3ebgFwI=; b=bLxf/YuwshfCmeDdCZdXbNJg5RS4v/BlJbUl0tMynq0cBbbq4IVQFH2YGqKOuwBy0g Op9S6XcrJxlctGs1QM3q9vE327OF4k3EVrmrPuulBbdP+WwwKKSLwiXbJsR+byonh2Es kyLYtHYvGIaElquBh0H4UMmQ1x9aYVt+yPz0s=
Received: by 10.204.135.73 with SMTP id m9mr603106bkt.340.1314765210388; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f6sm199022bkw.30.2011.08.30.21.33.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E5DB9B8.70006@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:34:00 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20110829144145.31952.69055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E5D06EA.9040205@gmx.de> <CAKJ_XVBrMLd1CxWUxfeHW2TPPNEmU0uwxiSn1+PN0Dft9ket4Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKJ_XVBrMLd1CxWUxfeHW2TPPNEmU0uwxiSn1+PN0Dft9ket4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090406090607000400070606"
Cc: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation@tools.ietf.org, "link-relations@ietf.org" <link-relations@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [link-relations] [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 31 Aug 2011 04:32:03 -0000

Maile and Joachim,

I did provide some comments on this draft on link-relations list; but 
I'd like you processed several new editorial issues/nits prior to 
submitting publication request.

> Abstract
>
>     The canonical link relation, developed from [RFC5988] which indicates
>     relationships between Internet links, specifies the preferred URI
>     from a set of identical or vastly similar content accessible on
>     multiple URIs.

This isn't clear enough for abstract.  I propose:

> Abstract
>
>     RFC 5988 specified a way to define relationships betweeen links on
>     the Web.  This document describes a new type of such relationship,
>     'canonical', which desigantes the preferred URI from a set of identical
>     or vastly similar ones.

A similar text should go in the first paragraph of Introduction.

In Introduction:

>     making it possible for references to the context URI to be updated to
>     reference the designated URI.

Maybe you meant "target URI" instead "designated URI" (terminology from 
RFC 5988).

Section 3:

>     The target/canonical URI MAY:
>
>     o  Specify a URI Reference (see [RFC3986] Section 4.1) i.e., an
>        absolute URI or a relative reference

What you mean here?  If you wanted to show that canonical URI may be a 
relative one, you should better write:

>     The target/canonical URI MAY:
>
>     o  Be a relative URI (see [RFC3986], Section 4.2);

Ibid:

>     The target/canonical URI SHOULD NOT designate:
>
>     o  The source URI of a permanent redirect (for HTTP, this refers to
>        Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]) or a "300 Multiple Choices" URI
>        (Section 10.3.1 of [RFC2616])

Here probably a typo happened; so please change to:

>     The target/canonical URI SHOULD NOT designate:
>
>     o  The URI which is a source of a permanent redirect (for HTTP, this
>        refers to 300 and 301 response codes, defined in Sections
>        10.3.1 and 10.3.2 of RFC 2616 [RFC2616]);

Ibid:

>     o  A URI that serves a 4xx error code (Section 10.4 of [RFC2616]).

Again, HTTP-centric approach.  There are many other application-layer 
protocols, for which URI schemes exist, and they aren't very likely to 
even have the same req/response model as HTTP has.  As this is only 
available in HTTP, I propose to exclude this bullet, unless you can 
reformulate it so that it doesn't use HTTP-only feature.

>     o  The first page of a multi-page article or multi-page listing of
>        items (since the first page is not a duplicate or a superset or
>        the context URI).  For example, page2 and page3 of an article
>        SHOULD NOT specify page1 as the canonical.

Here you may point to Section 6.12 of you reference 
[REC-html401-19991224], which specifies the 'start' relation 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/types.html#idx-link_type), 
used for this purpose.

In Section 5:

>     2.  Permanent HTTP redirects (Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]), the
>         traditional strong indicator that a URI's content has been
>         permanently moved, could not be implemented in place of the
>         canonical link relation.

Also too HTTP-centric approach.  The same as above applies.

References:

Why make RFC 2616 and HTML4 spec Normative references?  Shouldn't 
Informative be OK?

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

31.08.2011 1:21, Maile Ohye wrote:
> Hi everyone, please let us know if you have additional feedback. After 
> many rounds of helpful discussion, I think we're nearing submission. :)
>
> I hope to submit a publication request on Wednesday, September 7th, 2011.
>
> Thanks!
> Maile
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt
>     Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:41:45 -0700
>     From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>     Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>     To: i-d-announce@ietf.org <mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org>
>
>     A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>     directories.
>
>            Title           : The Canonical Link Relation
>            Author(s)       : Maile Ohye
>                              Joachim Kupke
>            Filename        : draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt
>            Pages           : 6
>            Date            : 2011-07-30
>
>       The canonical link relation, developed from [RFC5988] which
>     indicates
>       relationships between Internet links, specifies the preferred URI
>       from a set of identical or vastly similar content accessible on
>       multiple URIs.
>
>     Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
>
>       Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Comments should be sent
>       to the IETF Apps-Discuss mailing list (see
>     &lt;https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss&gt;
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss%3E>).
>
>
>     A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt
>
>     Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>     ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>     This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
>     ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-01.txt
>     _______________________________________________
>     I-D-Announce mailing list
>     I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>     Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>     or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     apps-discuss mailing list
>     apps-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss