ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00.txt> (The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC

2012-01-01 08:22:07
Mykyta,

thank you for working on this draft. Before you try to get a specification 
through Last Call that's possibly at odds with the current (and as far as I 
know original) use of the link relationship, it would perhaps be useful to talk 
to the current users of this particular link relationship, and request their 
review of the specification, and find out their views on the proposed change to 
its semantics.

A good place to reach many of the interested parties would be the 
spec-prod(_at_)w3(_dot_)org mailing list.

Also, I'd recommend that you contact Ian Jacobs, W3C's head of communications; 
he's in charge of the detailed publication requirements for W3C specifications.

Before these steps have happened, it would appear premature to me to request 
publication of this document as an RFC.

Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr(_at_)w3(_dot_)org>  (@roessler)







On 2012-01-01, at 15:04 +0100, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

Julian,

I'd be glad to describe current use, but as long as we want to
introduce a possibility to reference separate disclosures, we cannot
fit two separate semantic models in one relation type.  And the naming
'disclosure' suits separate instances of disclosures rather than a
list.  And, should there be no objections, the document may be
processed with the change without 2nd LC.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

2012/1/1 Julian Reschke <julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de>:
On 2012-01-01 09:25, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

Julian, all,

When I came to fixing the examples section per received comments, I
first began to refine the example on references to separate
disclosures, and what I got was:

   <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>

(unchanged fragment of list) and, later,

    <a rel="disclosure"
     href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1097/";>IPR Disclosure
    #1097</a>

(this was fixed to suit real situation with RFC 5925).  And, after a
closer look, I realized that the separate-patent-disclosure semantics
and a list-thereof one are completely different.  That is a simple and
compelling reason, I think, to distinguish the semantics.

And that's why we have 'item' and 'collection' relations (now in LC)
defined as pair (actually, what my document defines may be considered
to be a special case of these in some way).

The only thing is that such proposed definition is different from the
current W3C's use of 'disclosure' relation, which is used as my
proposed 'disclosure-list', but once we have defined both, W3C will
migrate to a new, correct one (I hope).

All the best, and happy New Year,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
...


Not convinced. I thought the purpose was to document an existing use? Now
you're adding another one (post-LC), and it's (as far as I can tell) totally
unclear what the W3C's take on this is. (they introduced the link relation,
after all)

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>