> There is: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/
>
>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06#section-4.1
I'm ok with that. I haven't seen it done, but it seems reasonable to say
"MUST either be an absolute URI or a relative URI with respect to the base
URI "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/".
I just want a consistent semantic if it's going to be expressed as a URI.
I don't *agree* particularly with using short names like this, it's a false
optimization that people just need to get over, but as long as it's
unambiguous, seems ok. From reading that draft, it says, as I think Eran
said, that using the full URI with those relation types is a SHOULD NOT, so
we obviously shouldn't do it.
-- Scott
