Subject: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:15:55 +0000 (UTC)

The template for this relation is in the specification as requested:

   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#rel-archives-registration

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:40:51 +0200

>     http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#rel-archives-registration

Sorry, I missed this request because it looked like a duplicate of the 
one for "alternate". It would probably a good idea to add the name of 
the actual relation to the subject line.

Format-wise, the same comments apply as for "alternate".

Contents-wise, I don't see any problem.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:11:36 +0000 (UTC)

> the actual relation to the subject line.

The Web Linking specification says to use "NEW RELATION REQUEST".

> Format-wise, the same comments apply as for "alternate".

Could you elaborate? The only problem I recall regarding "alternate" was 
regarding the W3C being the previously-used reference for the keyword, 
which doesn't seem relevant here since it's not a registered keyword.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:30:24 +0200

> The Web Linking specification says to use "NEW RELATION REQUEST".

And I had the impression you didn't like bureaucracy :-)

It says:

>    Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing
>    list, marked clearly in the subject line (e.g,.  "NEW RELATION
>    REQUEST").

That doesn't mean you can't add more information. IMHO.

> which doesn't seem relevant here since it's not a registered keyword.

Indeed. I meant to refer to the thread about which spec to link to when 
both a WhatWG and a W3C spec define it -- 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00022.html>.

As Mark wrote in 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00022.html>:

> This registration is a bit unusual, in that you're registering using whatwg.org URIs, when the W3C -- an organisation that the IETF recognises as producing Open Standards --- as per RFC2026 -- is producing a specification that is substantially the same.
>
> While whatwg.org isn't necessarily precluded from meeting the prerequisites of Specification Required (and therefore making registrations), we want to make sure that this isn't conflicting with ongoing W3C work.
>
> As such I've CC:ed the W3C's liaisons to the IETF for their comment.

To which Philippe replied in 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00023.html>:

> I see no reason here why the registration cannot point to the W3C
> specification. The W3C HTML Working Group is producing the specification
> for HTML, and pointing to somewhere would undermine the current process
> and effort happening within W3C.

So optimally, the W3C and the WHATWG would come back to us with a 
recommendation what spec to cite. Extra points if it's the same for all 
relations defined in HTML5.

Best regards, Julian