Mykyta, thank you for working on this draft. Before you try to get a specification through Last Call that's possibly at odds with the current (and as far as I know original) use of the link relationship, it would perhaps be useful to talk to the current users of this particular link relationship, and request their review of the specification, and find out their views on the proposed change to its semantics. A good place to reach many of the interested parties would be the spec-prod@xxxxxx mailing list. Also, I'd recommend that you contact Ian Jacobs, W3C's head of communications; he's in charge of the detailed publication requirements for W3C specifications. Before these steps have happened, it would appear premature to me to request publication of this document as an RFC. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@xxxxxx> (@roessler) On 2012-01-01, at 15:04 +0100, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf