> > In line with comments I've made in other threads I think it makes sense for > us to limit link relation discussions to the generic relation itself rather > than any specific implementation of it. >
Several relations would need a similar treatment. For example: *edit:* An IRI of an editable Member Entry. When appearing within an > atom:entry, the href IRI can be used to retrieve, update and delete the > Resource represented by that Entry. BTW, what would be the generic link relation to indicate an AtomPub collection (only the service document is registered at IANA) ? > In terms of the relation, I think the description could be improved by > dropping references to entries, Atom and RSS. It is conceivable for example > that someone would want to be notified of an update to an HTML page (I'm > thinking about this currently for status updates to HTML renderings of > virtual machine resources) or indeed some other arbitrary resource. If we > [continue to] allow relations to be bound to protocols in spite of the > availability of content types and/or URI relations which are fit for the > purpose we're going to back ourselves into a corner before we know it. I agree. We need a better policy for rel values. Currently, it seems that new rel values are added to the IANA link registry whenever a new RFC is adopted. These relationships could have a much broader scope and shouldn't be bound to particular protocols. Hadrien
