* Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >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 do not think you should (be able to) make such a change without a new Last Call, and I disagree with the separation. Reasons include that it's unclear which relation you use if you have one disclosure where many patents are disclosed; would that be "disclosure" because it's just one disclosure, or would it be a "disclosure-list" because many patents are disclosed? On the German Wikipedia people are even used to flamewars concerning List articles that have no or just one item, where some ar- gue that you need at least two items to have a list. In this sense you could probably always use 'disclosure-list' in place of 'disclosure' if you think empty and single item lists are meaningful concepts. -- 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