FWIW, I strongly support Thomas's position. This should either
be a narrow description of existing practice or should not be
approved by the IETF without review and buy-in from the
communities who actually use and support this mechanism.
john
--On Sunday, January 01, 2012 18:06 +0100 Thomas Roessler
<tlr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Bjoern,
>
> I'm not interested in a game of process nomics.
>
> rel=disclosure has been in actual and continuous use in highly
> stable documents for almost 10 years now; a very quick search
> turns up early usage in late 2002. As far as I can tell, it
> starts to show up as a "suggestion" in the W3C publication
> rules some time between April and September 2002.
>
> That predates the Web Linking spec (and its creation of the
> current relationship value registry) by about 8 years.
>
> The draft before the IETF now started out as inspired by and
> documenting the existing usage. That is a very welcome and
> useful thing to do.
>
> The proposal is now — in last call — changing into "hey,
> let's actually redefine the usage of that link relationship,
> W3C will just follow." I think that that is an unwise step
> unless you actually have buy-in from those who build the
> current W3C tool-chain, and from those who maintain the
> current set of documents. The very least I'd expect is that
> those who propose the change make an effort to get in touch
> with the current users of the link relationship. Posting an
> idea to ietf@xxxxxxxx is not a good way to do so.
>
> Further, I think that it will be pretty unlikely that we'll
> make changes to Recommendations and other publications going
> back over 10 years to accommodate the proposed new usage.
>
> Speaking personally, -1 to the proposed change of semantics.
>
> Speaking as liaison, I've already pointed you at the
> appropriate people to ask for review. This being an
> individual, informational draft, I think it's fair to expect
> the submitter to go and secure the appropriate review.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@xxxxxx> (@roessler)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2012-01-01, at 17:13 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
>> * Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>> On 2012-01-01, at 15:51 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>>> * Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>>>> Before these steps have happened, it would appear
>>>>> premature to me to request publication of this document as
>>>>> an RFC.
>>
>>> Neither the intention to last call the draft, nor the
>>> proposed incompatible change were announced to that list.
>>
>> So what is the point of order you are trying to raise?
>> Registering the link relation pretty much requires
>> publication of the draft as RFC, so the intent should be
>> implicit, and given the length of the draft, and my review
>> comments, the timing should be rather clear to anyone who
>> cared aswell, so I don't see how the request for publication
>> was prema- ture.
>>
>> If you only want to make sure interested parties are aware of
>> the state of the discussion around the document, you can just
>> tell them, like I did when I copied my review comments to
>> spec-prod, or point this thread out to W3C's IETF Liaison so
>> they can spread the word for you. --
>> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx ·
>> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon:
>> +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899
>> Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·
>> http://www.websitedev.de/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf