I actually think this link type registry that they have been discussing
in the HTTP activity is a bad idea, in that it conflicts with the type
registry we already have. I have repeatedly pointed out to that group
that we are already in this space, and that we have a collection of
values that at the very least need to be incorporated into their work.
I think that the right thing for them to do is to defer to the value
collection we have already defined. That collection is defined using
RDFa, and is readily extractable / machine readable using rules from a
W3C Recommendation. What more do we need to do?
Manu Sporny wrote:
Going forward, we should consider using the Link Relation Type Registry
for reserved values for @rel and @rev in RDFa for all HTML family languages:
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.html
Issues:
- Parsers shouldn't require hitting the registry to operate correctly -
should we state that valid values can be found at the LinkType registry
URL? Developers may hardcode the values in their parsers?
- Would this unnecessarily/erroneously override HTML4 LinkType values?
-- manu
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: sh...@aptest.com
