not sure which commit these were actually on, but i have two
comments. You modified Section 2.4.1 to read:
> The one distinction is that link relationships described by the
> <Link> element are between the resource described by the XRD (the
> context resource) and the linked resources (the target resources),
> and not between the XRD document itself and the linked resource.
The addition here are the two parenthetical statements, "context
resource" and "target resource". Both of these are new terms that are
not present anywhere else in the spec. Some time ago we did away with
the term "target resource" in favor of "linked resource". We also
consistently use the phrase "resource described by the XRD" throughout
the spec. It is a mouthful, and I'm not terribly fond of it, but it
is accurate and the best we could come up with. I don't disagree that
this sentence can be a little confusing with all the "resources" being
thrown about, but I'm concerned about throwing in new terminology here
that isn't at all consistent with the rest of the spec.
You added the following paragraph to the end of Section 2.5.1:
> New relation types between resources must follow the extensibility
> and registration requirements defined in [HTTP Link Header].
While I don't disagree with this, I'm curious if it's necessary. The
whole reason link-header had to create a registry is because it is
using tokens for registered values, and only using URIs for extended
values. XRD is specifically using URIs only, so we don't really care
about the token values. The universal rule of URIs is that you don't
make up new URIs in namespaces you don't own. That would imply that
you can't make up a new relationship in the "http://www.iana.org/assignment/relation
" unless you've properly registered it. Now, I do like having some
kind of reference because it instructs publishers how to format those
token values as URIs, but the wording of the above paragraph seems out
of place, given how XRD uses these values.
