From mnot@mnot.net Fri Feb 4 15:26:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2393A69FC for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:26:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.676 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdBx4iRcKRzi for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1518E3A69FA for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.1.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 263C0509D9; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 18:30:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <033901cbbc85$6524bd90$2f6e38b0$@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:30:12 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <033901cbbc85$6524bd90$2f6e38b0$@gmail.com> To: Toby.Considine@gmail.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com, link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW APP DATA - request for Advice - WS-Calendar X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 23:26:57 -0000 Hi, Could you give a few examples where these are serialised (e.g., as HTTP = headers)? Cheers, On 25/01/2011, at 10:45 PM, Toby Considine wrote: > Greetings > =20 > This is *not yet* a request. > =20 > Within the OASIS WS-Calendar TC, we have looked to several relations = that could perhaps be developed using links (RFC5988). We have called = these the =93temporal relations=94. As it sits now, there four of the = general format: > =20 > [link] [relation] [duration] > =20 > WS-Calendar generally uses semantics from RFC5545, and chains = intervals (expressed as vtodo objects) together to create sequences. = While sequences might be one after another, with no gap, they may not. > =20 > The relations are > =20 > [finishtostart] [fs] when this interval finishes, linked interval = starts. > [starttostart] [ss] when this interval starts, linked interval starts. > [finishtofinish] [ff] linked interval may not finish until this = interval finishes. > [starttofinish] [sf] linked interval must finish before this starts. > =20 > Each of these relations *may* be accompanied by a gap, expressed as an = icalendar duration which modifies the close link described above. > =20 > If I understand the specification properly, this means that I am = requesting the above be the relation types, and that the normal format = be: > =20 > [finishtostart][target IRI][ gap] > =20 > Each object already contains an identifier, which I think could be = defined as the context IRI > =20 > Does this give you sufficient information? > =20 > tc > =20 > =93It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his = salary depends upon his not understanding it=94 -- Upton Sinclair. > Toby Considine > TC9, Inc > OASIS Technical Advisory Board > TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar > TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop > U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture = Committee >=20 > =20 > Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com > Phone: (919)619-2104 > http://www.tcnine.com/ > blog: www.NewDaedalus.com > =20 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From julian.reschke@gmx.de Wed Feb 16 07:13:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B10D3A6E17 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:13:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.657 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9hdlHPeTyYHR for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:13:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B3B5D3A6CC7 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:13:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2011 15:14:03 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.134]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 16 Feb 2011 16:14:03 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/0/L0vFr30eFu/4EImiaLz5N/CgPrpWZp9gx3lme a0/HXGWs5tCI6e Message-ID: <4D5BE9B3.9060703@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:13:55 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham References: <9F2D0C6E-340B-4505-A506-6340E203CBF4@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <9F2D0C6E-340B-4505-A506-6340E203CBF4@mnot.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:13:38 -0000 So, we somehow need to decide how to proceed with this one. Did anybody hear from Sam? Best regards, Julian On 08.12.2010 06:16, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Ed, > > Embarrassingly, I've overlooked a pre-existing draft: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnston-addressing-link-relations/ > > In our defense, it predated the registry being approved... > > Perhaps you could work with Sam? > > Regards, > > > On 15/11/2010, at 1:33 PM, Ed Summers wrote: > >> Relation Name: >> canonical >> >> Description: >> A canonical page is the preferred version of a set of pages with >> highly similar content. >> >> Reference: >> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394 >> >> Notes: >> This relation is used by web crawlers to prefer a particular URI when >> multiple URIs are available for similar content. For example, when a >> URL contains a tracking number or sort parameters. >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > From ed.summers@gmail.com Thu Feb 17 05:32:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B5D3A6CAE for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:32:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5obeomXcbwZV for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:32:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949293A6C8B for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by iym1 with SMTP id 1so2521435iym.31 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:32:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ARAwv4x8tgs7W4TF5mb64LPVX1T+rqKRXHiIqNm46D0=; b=JTgKZO+kQYY79a9r11UbDGj0IScqTbRyGt87HJVll1Nid6O/Jlt6eTww9Q6t0KSjwk UP/0s1s80WUHc7qapIpdMwpP5cIBzlDC9QMOpnoMcb5mE/BkkpxsNZlBx2broTKC1Cli 8NeoeJNmet0ZIliuRA5XEW922n02t9Amr9LWo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=wRK00EIaHWZYk3cpvFuugXcKloZ2HAGJTN3OSsIe/m+ycF6LKFN5ViFLHmoOLjHJ2D 5dH4IUGIHQdRTkH9Qs4hRcv+VqEDXIYIGyJDJrhNg6yondGgCNZed7Pyu68NklxJDZys bkmQp0/e4zzuD69fdMd1CxIrqdj5K4lN+88xs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.37.138 with SMTP id x10mr1541638ibd.192.1297949560220; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:32:40 -0800 (PST) Sender: ed.summers@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.35.140 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:32:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D5BE9B3.9060703@gmx.de> References: <9F2D0C6E-340B-4505-A506-6340E203CBF4@mnot.net> <4D5BE9B3.9060703@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:32:40 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UIRqalxj_fozQ4ea5ZWyzSY5N3Y Message-ID: From: Ed Summers To: sj@google.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:32:17 -0000 Hi Sam, The link-relations registry folks (RFC 5988) would like to add canonical to the registry [1,2]. Mark Nottingham noticed that you have a IETF draft [3] that describes canonical as well as current, immutable, latest, mirror, permalink and shortlink...which is great! The draft just recently expired last month. I was wondering what it would take for us to push this forward, perhaps as an Informational RFC so we can document the use of canonical (and perhaps the others?). Did you get any feedback on the draft? As an aside, it would be interesting to know if Google is currently using the other link relations in any way. I think the link-relations discussion list (cc'd here) would be a good place to discuss it. Julian, Mark would Sam's draft need to be an RFC before we could link to it from the registry? I guess a similar hosted at google.com would work as well? //Ed [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/ [2] http://paramsr.us/tracker/issue25 [3] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-johnston-addressing-link-relations-01.txt From julian.reschke@gmx.de Thu Feb 17 05:39:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD5F3A6E11 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:39:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.644 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wA9gVh-0xLGB for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C04F3A6E08 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:39:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2011 13:40:04 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.134]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp008) with SMTP; 17 Feb 2011 14:40:04 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+VZ2lDo6WV6xWMZz0fDu7GVV1OapuiJHexfAhdry cItiTIUKISOJgR Message-ID: <4D5D252B.1080107@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:39:55 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Summers References: <9F2D0C6E-340B-4505-A506-6340E203CBF4@mnot.net> <4D5BE9B3.9060703@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: sj@google.com, link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:39:35 -0000 On 17.02.2011 14:32, Ed Summers wrote: > ... > Julian, Mark would Sam's draft need to be an RFC before we could link > to it from the registry? I guess a similar hosted at google.com would > work as well? > ... From IETF's point of view, IDs are volatile documents that disappear when they expire. So no, this wouldn't be sufficient. Hosting a document at google.com should work if the URI looks stable. Optimally, we'd just finish the Internet Draft and get it published... Best regards, Julian From ed.summers@gmail.com Thu Feb 17 05:40:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7253A6DDD for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:40:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HcwsoqBNWjBF for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:40:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3653A6CCE for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:40:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so2670509iwc.31 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:40:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=RT+Yb4spVqGWgsDI8DbNCSZbEP8t/f95RsxAl2dJ5MU=; b=o57ct50Iszl85MRxMxPfjVrNvgDXV4Ve2ql8Fvaot+g6fReK/A1sLGEJdWq8URGJs9 EbTgRjpYy30YX2UnDuyEJbu94iyTSRzSqZ0hn48dngA3XNOQjORV9qjmB+ewwsmKv5za cI8Vl61pLgnzauH7KpGdEfeE7MwzNNnS1B34M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=dle1n+MZZBOT4GP1MeMtVYWmjc78Z6nS80y1a3v7mkpOZgh6xpauCiuYvcTIELiZEr yRweTAfrEBHUGasZ001gz7zpmh057GtSYRwk/J4JoRwhLC8NiKtYqFsDUGEF7l9HE2Od Vj21nWL3JxjZdPaY+Qf3TWnRaYufiNVg678Mc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.240.197 with SMTP id lb5mr2798708icb.25.1297950045568; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:40:45 -0800 (PST) Sender: ed.summers@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.35.140 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:40:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9F2D0C6E-340B-4505-A506-6340E203CBF4@mnot.net> <4D5BE9B3.9060703@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:40:45 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: GJ2X7Q-JoArVkloInBZbgSZ8BgU Message-ID: From: Ed Summers To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:40:17 -0000 Ahh, just got a bounce for Sam's email address at google.com, saying that he no longer works there. The bounce said to forward correspondence to gcolman@google.com, so I'll try to find a current email address for Sam and resend to both. //Ed On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Ed Summers wrote: > Hi Sam, > > The link-relations registry folks (RFC 5988) would like to add > canonical to the registry [1,2]. Mark Nottingham noticed that you have > a IETF draft [3] that describes canonical as well as current, > immutable, latest, mirror, permalink and shortlink...which is great! > > The draft just recently expired last month. I was wondering what it > would take for us to push this forward, perhaps as an Informational > RFC so we can document the use of canonical (and perhaps the others?). > Did you get any feedback on the draft? As an aside, it would be > interesting to know if Google is currently using the other link > relations in any way. I think the link-relations discussion list (cc'd > here) would be a good place to discuss it. > > Julian, Mark would Sam's draft need to be an RFC before we could link > to it from the registry? I guess a similar hosted at google.com would > work as well? > > //Ed > > [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/ > [2] http://paramsr.us/tracker/issue25 > [3] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-johnston-addressing-link-relations-01.txt > From ed.summers@gmail.com Thu Feb 17 06:06:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4053A6E0A for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:06:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vf-z1IYaD30L for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E693A6CAC for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so2698666iwc.31 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=G5WuPVyoZvSY8hWFwSsBT1feo59R6nsjlGDtuzz382o=; b=plEIgVChnrvkIcl48EUrk0AfPR14Kzv41x+5Cc624KcyoX/pm4RXzSvhPAiiklp57/ wexF+9mv8eoaHaRHeifzCdy3lli/8cd0IFesmKU9jM7nE6S1746/Ppb4E/tzThA6+bOs 3EEb0F46kuCaooPtaJY6Z02FQhOwgEYcKM+a8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=nr9DHke77AXu9BHTz2je+RYUNaLIcDnsqBp2U+3zCkVkR6IKlf/+vXy03ALqdpj7SA zaGaldddNxEg3ELcIb6iZurj5os6ztN6Mi1N5lC/BO4ktKCOtpY5sVEUlpNP1WnR7FAK jCjVsjZUYldiuPlM7Y4FL+alhcWfaiWTZMS4s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.38.2 with SMTP id z2mr1589483ibd.142.1297951629990; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:09 -0800 (PST) Sender: ed.summers@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.35.140 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D5D252B.1080107@gmx.de> References: <9F2D0C6E-340B-4505-A506-6340E203CBF4@mnot.net> <4D5BE9B3.9060703@gmx.de> <4D5D252B.1080107@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:07:09 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yBf_UfAt7gdfih_mGu4tpZaAP0k Message-ID: From: Ed Summers To: samj@samj.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: gcolman@google.com, link-relations@ietf.org Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: canonical X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:06:40 -0000 Hi Sam, The link-relations registry folks (RFC 5988) would like to add canonical to the registry [1,2]. Mark Nottingham noticed that you have a IETF draft [3] that describes canonical as well as current, immutable, latest, mirror, permalink and shortlink...which is great! The draft just recently expired last month. And I noticed from a bounce message to sj@google.com that you have changed employment. I was wondering what it would take for us to push this forward, perhaps as an Informational RFC so we can document the use of canonical (and perhaps the others?). Did you get any feedback on the draft? As an aside, it would be interesting to know if Google is currently using the other link relations in any way. I think the link-relations discussion list (cc'd here) would be a good place to discuss it. Julian, Mark would Sam's draft need to be an RFC before we could link to it from the registry? I guess a similar hosted at google.com would work as well? //Ed From mnot@mnot.net Thu Feb 17 22:20:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4C23A6CAB for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:20:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljZQia2c8Mef for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBC13A68DD for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.52.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7665B509B3; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:20:58 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Nottingham Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:20:55 +1100 Message-Id: <8842EE1B-30A4-461C-A2D0-485D16EB832C@mnot.net> To: IANA Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "Michael\(tm\) Smith" , link-relations@ietf.org Subject: [link-relations] link relation type registration X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:20:41 -0000 IANA folks, Please add/update (as appropriate) the following entries to the Link = Relation Types registry = : ----------- Relation Name: tag Description: Gives a tag (identified by the given address) that applies to the current document. Reference:=20 http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-tag Notes: --------------- Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/