Hi Henry, On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Henry Story <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On 10 Aug 2013, at 00:18, Kingsley Idehen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> When talking about this with Alexandre Bertails he thought that > rel="meta" was > >> not the right relation and that rel="acl" would be more correct. > > > > Yes. > > > > It will be fixed. > > We need to get those who have implementations to agree on this first. :-) > +1 > > And I am not sure what forum is available where we can agree on edits to > the acl ontolgy or the http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl wiki page, > so I am sending this mail a bit widely around. The WebAccessControl wiki > page suggests that the RWW Community Group is the place to discuss this. > > I suppose for the moment the WebAccessControl wiki page plays the role of a > spec. It says: > > [[ > The client follows, for example, an HTTP header field: > > Link: <meta/profile.meta>; rel=meta > ]] > > Alexandre Bertails once argued that meta is too general, and that this > should > be an "acl" link. Neither "acl" nor "meta" are registered in the iana > document > http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml > which is I think where this needs to be registered. > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.1 +1 to "acl" instead of "meta". > > > For us to register this we should probably have something a bit more > spec like than the wiki page. > > I also would like to add to the ontology > - support for regular expressions on urls > - a acl:include relation to include acls from other documents > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > >
