okay, this all makes sense I guess. If we *are* going to allow for
relative URIs for <Rel>, which I agree there is a lot of value there,
then the added paragraph referencing Link-Header should indeed be
present in Section 2.5.1. Let's just repeat it in the extensibility
section.
will
On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> -----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
