Julian, I'd be glad to describe current use, but as long as we want to introduce a possibility to reference separate disclosures, we cannot fit two separate semantic models in one relation type. And the naming 'disclosure' suits separate instances of disclosures rather than a list. And, should there be no objections, the document may be processed with the change without 2nd LC. Mykyta Yevstifeyev 2012/1/1 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>: > On 2012-01-01 09:25, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> >> 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 >> ... > > > Not convinced. I thought the purpose was to document an existing use? Now > you're adding another one (post-LC), and it's (as far as I can tell) totally > unclear what the W3C's take on this is. (they introduced the link relation, > after all) > > Best regards, Julian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf