ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-01-01 11:11:31
FWIW, I strongly support Thomas's position.  This should either
be a narrow description of existing practice or should not be
approved by the IETF without review and buy-in from the
communities who actually use and support this mechanism.
   
    john


--On Sunday, January 01, 2012 18:06 +0100 Thomas Roessler
<tlr(_at_)w3(_dot_)org> wrote:

Bjoern,

I'm not interested in a game of process nomics.

rel=disclosure has been in actual and continuous use in highly
stable documents for almost 10 years now; a very quick search
turns up early usage in late 2002.  As far as I can tell, it
starts to show up as a "suggestion" in the W3C publication
rules some time between April and September 2002. 

That predates the Web Linking spec (and its creation of the
current relationship value registry) by about 8 years.

The draft before the IETF now started out as inspired by and
documenting the existing usage.  That is a very welcome and
useful thing to do.

The proposal is now — in last call — changing into "hey,
let's actually redefine the usage of that link relationship,
W3C will just follow."  I think that that is an unwise step
unless you actually have buy-in from those who build the
current W3C tool-chain, and from those who maintain the
current set of documents.  The very least I'd expect is that
those who propose the change make an effort to get in touch
with the current users of the link relationship.  Posting an
idea to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org is not a good way to do so.

Further, I think that it will be pretty unlikely that we'll
make changes to Recommendations and other publications going
back over 10 years to accommodate the proposed new usage.

Speaking personally, -1 to the proposed change of semantics.

Speaking as liaison, I've already pointed you at the
appropriate people to ask for review.  This being an
individual, informational draft, I think it's fair to expect
the submitter to go and secure the appropriate review.

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







On 2012-01-01, at 17:13 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

* Thomas Roessler wrote:
On 2012-01-01, at 15:51 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Thomas Roessler wrote:
Before these steps have happened, it would appear
premature to me to request publication of this document as
an RFC.

Neither the intention to last call the draft, nor the
proposed incompatible change were announced to that list.

So what is the point of order you are trying to raise?
Registering the link relation pretty much requires
publication of the draft as RFC, so the intent should be
implicit, and given the length of the draft, and my review
comments, the timing should be rather clear to anyone who
cared aswell, so I don't see how the request for publication
was prema- ture.

If you only want to make sure interested parties are aware of
the state of the discussion around the document, you can just
tell them, like I did when I copied my review comments to
spec-prod, or point this thread out to W3C's IETF Liaison so
they can spread the word for you. -- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern(_at_)hoehrmann(_dot_)de ·
http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon:
+49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899
Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·
http://www.websitedev.de/ 


_______________________________________________
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>