Julian, all,
When I came to fixing the examples section per received comments, I
first began to refine the example on references to separate
disclosures, and what I got was:
<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>
(unchanged fragment of list) and, later,
<a rel="disclosure"
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1097/";>IPR Disclosure
#1097</a>
(this was fixed to suit real situation with RFC 5925). And, after a
closer look, I realized that the separate-patent-disclosure semantics
and a list-thereof one are completely different. That is a simple and
compelling reason, I think, to distinguish the semantics.
And that's why we have 'item' and 'collection' relations (now in LC)
defined as pair (actually, what my document defines may be considered
to be a special case of these in some way).
The only thing is that such proposed definition is different from the
current W3C's use of 'disclosure' relation, which is used as my
proposed 'disclosure-list', but once we have defined both, W3C will
migrate to a new, correct one (I hope).
All the best, and happy New Year,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
2011/12/29 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>:
> On 2011-12-27 07:52, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to seek consensus on separating the semantics of link
>> relation for separate disclosure and a list thereof, correspondingly
>> defining two link relations - 'disclosure' and 'disclosure-list'. You
>> may see my edits made to Section 2 of the doc. below, which I'm
>> proposing:
>>
>> 2. 'disclosure' Link Relation Type
>>
>> Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI
>> [RFC5988] MUST refer to a particular patent disclosure made with
>> respect to the material being referenced by context IRI.
>>
>> 3. 'disclosure-list' Link Relation Type
>>
>> Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
>> designate a list of patent disclosures made with respect to the
>> material being referenced by context IRI.
>>
>> As the doc. is in Last Call now, in order not to initiate a new one,
>> please comment on these changes before January 6, so that I could know
>> which version I should submit for IESG evaluation.
>> ...
>
>
> I don't see a compelling reason to distinguish both.
>
> Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf