Subject: registration of HTTP Profile header: ETA?

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:42:40 -0600

In the GRDDL Working group, we make use of URI-qualified, typed links in 
HTML,
and we decided, a few weeks ago, that links from HTTP headers should 
work too;
this introduces a normative dependency on the Profile header as specified in
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-nottingham-http-link-header/ , 
currently
expired.

I'm new to the RFC3864 header registration process. I'd like to think
it can be accomplished in 6 or 8 weeks. Is that realistic?

I'm getting nervous that there has been no response to our 8 Feb message.
http-link-header in GRDDL
From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in%20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E>> 

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:43:00 +0100
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in%20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E> 

Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <[email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in%20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E>>, 
public-grddl-wg <[email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in%20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E>>, 
"Graham Klyne" <[email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in%20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E>>, 
"Ian Davis" <[email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in%20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com%253E>> 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JanMar/0146.html

For reference, the working version of the spec is
  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddl-http
especially section 6. Using GRDDL With HTTP Headers
  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddl-http

and I am collecting pointers under the relevant issue...
  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-http-header-links

p.s. Ted, I hope this will take care of itself by email, but
in case it doesn't, please consider this for the agenda of our next meeting,
which, as I recall from 
http://www.w3.org/2006/11/01-ietf-minutes.html#item02 ,
you're charing on March 7th.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:34:14 +1100

Dan,

I responded (as the submitter of that I-D) to a few people from the  
WG who have contacted me (there have been a number), pointing them to  
the HTTP mailing list as the locus of discussion.

I don't think we're yet at a place where we can advance this draft,  
as there's still discussion about the relationship between HTML links  
and Atom links, and whether there needs to be a centralised registry  
for link relations.

I wish I could give you something more concrete, but that's where we  
are.

The registration process in this case is the standardisation process;  
if and when it becomes an RFC, it will be inserted into the registry.  
Since it'll need to be standards-track and thus go through review,  
last call, etc., 6 to 8 weeks isn't realistic IMO.

Cheers,

P.S. I'm writing this with my draft author hat on.

On 2007/02/22, at 5:42 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> In the GRDDL Working group, we make use of URI-qualified, typed  
> links in HTML,
> and we decided, a few weeks ago, that links from HTTP headers  
> should work too;
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-nottingham-http-link- 
> header/ , currently
> expired.
>
> <mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in% 
> 20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=% 
> 253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com% 
> 253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e% 
> 40mail.gmail.com%253E>>
> Message-ID:  
> <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A% 
> 20http-link-header%20in%20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=% 
> 253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com% 
> 253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e% 
> 40mail.gmail.com%253E>
> Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]? 
> Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in%20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=% 
> 253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com% 
> 253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e% 
> 40mail.gmail.com%253E>>, public-grddl-wg <[email-masked]  
> <mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in 
> %20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=% 
> 253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com% 
> 253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e% 
> 40mail.gmail.com%253E>>, "Graham Klyne" <[email-masked]  
> <mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in% 
> 20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=% 
> 253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com% 
> 253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e% 
> 40mail.gmail.com%253E>>, "Ian Davis" <[email-masked]  
> <mailto:[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20http-link-header%20in% 
> 20GRDDL&In-Reply-To=% 
> 253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e%40mail.gmail.com% 
> 253E&References=%253C1f2ed5cd0702080243l6a8b628aib67ae02c72e2eb4e% 
> 40mail.gmail.com%253E>>
> which, as I recall from http://www.w3.org/2006/11/01-ietf- 
> minutes.html#item02 ,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:03:37 -0600

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I responded (as the submitter of that I-D) to a few people from the WG 
> who have contacted me (there have been a number), pointing them to the 
> HTTP mailing list as the locus of discussion.
>
> I don't think we're yet at a place where we can advance this draft, as 
> there's still discussion about the relationship between HTML links and 
> Atom links, and whether there needs to be a centralised registry for 
> link relations.
I'm happy for The Web to serve as the registry, using Profiles. But I 
saw some of the discussion...
I can see that not everybody thinks this way. Sigh... here I was, 
thinking this thing was stable
and just waiting for some trigger to start a last call...
> I wish I could give you something more concrete, but that's where we are.
>
I see.

Harry, it looks like this dependency isn't going to work out in time. 
Bummer.
I guess I'll write to grddl-wg suggesting we take it back out. Is it 
best to do
that right away, or let people focus on review for a bit?

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:38:14 +1100

If you just define the link relation value(s) and profile value for  
HTML, everything should folllow naturally if the current approach  
goes forward; nothing needs to be registered. The text you have now  
could be moved to a primer or later update...

Cheers,

On 2007/02/22, at 10:16 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:

> If Mark feels like the issue cannot be resolved by July 13th, then we
> should likely remove the feature from GRDDL. Which is unfortunate,  
> since
> it was a good use case of HTTP Profile headers and made GRDDL a more
> useful specification, but we cannot go to Rec. with this feature.
>
> The only other option would be to ask Graham Klyne to regsiter just  
> the
> link header, and try to hack together the feature without the profile
> header.
>
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Dan,
>>>
> 		-harry
> Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh
> http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
>

---

From: Dan Connolly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:51:42 -0600

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> HTML, everything should folllow naturally if the current approach goes 
> forward; nothing needs to be registered. The text you have now could 
> be moved to a primer or later update...

yeah, a later update seems most likely. i.e. the someday pile.

Oh well.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:25:13 +1100

BTW, if you (and other interested parties) have an opinion about  
extensible values vs. a registry, it would be good if you expressed  
them on the HTTP list; it may even lubricate discussion and get a  
quicker result.

Cheers,

On 2007/02/22, at 10:51 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> If you just define the link relation value(s) and profile value  
>> for HTML, everything should folllow naturally if the current  
>> approach goes forward; nothing needs to be registered. The text  
>> you have now could be moved to a primer or later update...
>