11.12.2011 22:05, Julian Reschke wrote:
Hi there,
Hi Julian,
feedback below:
1. Introduction
RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined a way of indicating relationships between
resources on the Web. This document specifies a new type of such
relationship - 'disclosure' Link Relation Type. It designates a list
of patent disclosures or a particular patent disclosure itself made
with respect to material for which such relation is specified.
s/-/- the/?
Will fix.
Active use of 'disclosure' relation type has been identified. The
current version of W3C Publication Rules [W3C-PUBRULES], Bullet 36 of
Section 5, defines that each W3C document must have the boilerplate
referring to the page where one may find patent disclosures made with
regard to such document. As W3C Publication Rules are applied to
many documents, that might be under different patent policies, a
number of variants of the mentioned boilerplate exist. However, the
phrase "W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in
connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also
includes instructions for disclosing a patent." can be found in each
of these variants. Publication Rules specify that, in the source
code, it must look like:
W3C maintains a <a rel="disclosure" href="...">public list of any
patent disclosures</a> made in connection with the deliverables of
the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a
patent.
Maybe it's worth pointing out that this does not apply as verbatim
instruction, but as HTML example.
I have that - "in source code". Maybe I should add "in HTML source code"?
It would be good to confirm with the W3C that this actually is a
requirement and not only a suggestion (cc'ing the author of PUBRULES).
And I have this as well, as I've introduced this extract with "must look
like".
Such provisions existed in previous versions of Publication Rules as
well, so such source text is often found in different W3C documents
that predated publication of RFC 5988 significantly. However,
'disclosure' relation type has not been mentioned in RFC 5988 when
creating the registry for relation types; nor was it registered
separately.
I think the paragraph above is misleading. It was not the point of RFC
5988 to define all current link relations (it *did* add existing HTML4
relations and Atom relations to the new registry but that's a separate
thing).
This may be read as if RFC 5988 is to determine all the rel types that
were used at the time of its writing, but I don't think the paragraph
directly implies this. I mean that it hasn't been registered either
centralized (in RFC 5988) or separately here.
2. 'disclosure' Link Relation Type
Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
either
(1) designate a list of patent disclosures, or
(2) refer to a particular patent disclosure made with respect to the
material being referenced by context IRI.
I think in both cases the patent disclosure(s) apply to the context, no?
Yes. I may change to:
Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
either
(1) designate a list of patent disclosures, or
(2) refer to a particular patent disclosure
made with respect to the material being referenced by context IRI.
to improve readability.
This section provides several examples of possible use of
'disclosure' relation type.
If the page <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/> contains a list of
patent disclosures made with respect to the specification found at
<http://example.org/specs/meta-spec/spec.html>, the latter would have
the following fragment of HTML source code:
<html>
...
Please visit
<a rel="disclosure" href="http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/";> the
IPR page</a> for the list of patent disclosures made with respect
to this specification.
...
</html>
Or, in the case of Link header field, the HTTP response would contain
the following header field:
Link: <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/>; rel="disclosure";
title="Patent Disclosures List"
(Please note that the actual header field will not contain the line
break after 'rel' parameter.)
It could if the second line was indented; maybe adjust the example?
I have:
Link: <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/>; rel="disclosure";
title="Patent Disclosures List"
both lines are indented with 5 Courier white spaces, and so I think my
explanation in parentheses is correct.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Bjoern Hoehrmann for noticing that 'disclosure' relation is
not properly specified and, correspondingly, initiating this work.
The author would also like to acknowledge the contributions of <TBD>
to this document.
Who's this TBD guy? :-)
You probably :-).
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf