> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Norris [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:57 AM
> Now that's really interesting... I hadn't considered "describedby" to
> be a valid value for <Rel>. I'm actually not too fond of that, and am
> now wondering if we *should* in fact mandate an absolute URI here.
No. The whole point is to borrow as much as possible from current practices in HTML, XHTML, ATOM, and HTTP Link:. That's what the link spec is trying to do. To go and exclude the most useful relation types (that is why they have a short name after all) is counterproductive.
> > I think it is important to point out to developers that if they want
> > to create new relation types, they should consult the link spec for
> > directions and guidelines on when to mint a short name and when a
> > URI extension.
>
>
> Fair enough. Perhaps move this paragraph to the extensibility section
> of the spec then?
I would mention it in both. One for explaining the syntax and another for how new relation types should be created.
EHL
