On 2011-12-13 20:07, "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" wrote:
...
Maybe it's worth pointing out that this does not apply as verbatim
instruction, but as HTML example.
I have that - "in source code". Maybe I should add "in HTML source code"?
The latter sounds good.
It would be good to confirm with the W3C that this actually is a
requirement and not only a suggestion (cc'ing the author of PUBRULES).
And I have this as well, as I've introduced this extract with "must look
like".
I'd like to see this confirmed by the W3C.
Such provisions existed in previous versions of Publication Rules as
well, so such source text is often found in different W3C documents
that predated publication of RFC 5988 significantly. However,
'disclosure' relation type has not been mentioned in RFC 5988 when
creating the registry for relation types; nor was it registered
separately.
I think the paragraph above is misleading. It was not the point of RFC
5988 to define all current link relations (it *did* add existing HTML4
relations and Atom relations to the new registry but that's a separate
thing).
This may be read as if RFC 5988 is to determine all the rel types that
were used at the time of its writing, but I don't think the paragraph
directly implies this. I mean that it hasn't been registered either
centralized (in RFC 5988) or separately here.
Well, it doesn't say anything interesting, and might confuse people to
think this was an oversight in 5988. Just drop it.
2. 'disclosure' Link Relation Type
Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
either
(1) designate a list of patent disclosures, or
(2) refer to a particular patent disclosure made with respect to the
material being referenced by context IRI.
I think in both cases the patent disclosure(s) apply to the context, no?
Yes. I may change to:
Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
either
(1) designate a list of patent disclosures, or
(2) refer to a particular patent disclosure
made with respect to the material being referenced by context IRI.
to improve readability.
OK.
This section provides several examples of possible use of
'disclosure' relation type.
If the page <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/> contains a list of
patent disclosures made with respect to the specification found at
<http://example.org/specs/meta-spec/spec.html>, the latter would have
the following fragment of HTML source code:
<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>
Or, in the case of Link header field, the HTTP response would contain
the following header field:
Link: <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/>; rel="disclosure";
title="Patent Disclosures List"
(Please note that the actual header field will not contain the line
break after 'rel' parameter.)
It could if the second line was indented; maybe adjust the example?
I have:
Link: <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/>; rel="disclosure";
title="Patent Disclosures List"
both lines are indented with 5 Courier white spaces, and so I think my
explanation in parentheses is correct.
Well, HTTP header fields start at column 0 in a message.
Of course you can indent your examples, but my point was that if you
indent the second line *more*, it would be valid. Like this:
Link: <http://example.org/ipr/meta-spec/>; rel="disclosure";
title="Patent Disclosures List"
...
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf