On 6/7/10 9:22 AM, Bob Wyman wrote: > The current Link Extensions[1] draft says "No IANA actions are > required..." however, IANA maintains a registry of link-relations[2] > that contains many of the link relations defined previously for use with > Atom. Why wouldn't IANA be asked to include these new link relations in > the existing registry? > > Also, there is a Wiki for HTML5 Link Relations[3] -- some of which come > from Atom. Is there any reason it wouldn't be appropriate to include > these new link relations in the HTML5 list? > > bob wyman > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-atompub-link-extensions-05.txt > [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml > [3] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions
My understanding is that the new IANA registry is intended to be the canonical location for this information, as specified by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-http-link-header/ (approved for publication as an RFC). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
