On 8/10/13 1:20 PM, mca wrote:
IMO, yes, you SHOULD do this as a way to document practice rather than drive adoption. (standards follow, they don't lead).

+1


you can do much of the "debate" in the IETF link rel list itself, if that's important to you.

and yes, you'll need some implementations to show that this is a good idea. i suspect you have that now, right? at any rate, posting a public effort to register can flush new ideas, competing adoption/implementations and help create consensus.

+1

Kingsley



mca
+1.859.757.1449
skype: mca.amundsen
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com/mamund
https://github.com/mamund
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeamundsen



On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Henry Story <henry.st...@bblfish.net <mailto:henry.st...@bblfish.net>> wrote:


    On 10 Aug 2013, at 18:14, mca <m...@amundsen.com
    <mailto:m...@amundsen.com>> wrote:

    Now is the time to register a link relation value with the IANA.

    It takes limited effort, need not slow your momentum and will
    make it easier to lead future development in this space.

    yes, though I think we should have a number of people together
    first to back
    the proposed link relation.

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.3

    My guess is that we would have better chance of success if we can
    show a mailing
    list where the issue was debated,  a spec that describes the link
    relation and
    implementation that use it.



    On Aug 10, 2013 12:07 PM, "Henry Story" <henry.st...@bblfish.net
    <mailto:henry.st...@bblfish.net>> wrote:


        On 10 Aug 2013, at 17:50, Kingsley Idehen
        <kide...@openlinksw.com <mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com>> wrote:

        > On 8/9/13 8:34 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
        >> The protected resource will show you where the acl (meta)
        data is with the header rel="meta"
        > I thought the consensus was: rel="acl"
        >
        > I guess, we are just going to have to support both, to be
        safe .

        There are still very few implementations, so this is the
        point where consensus can
        be reached at little cost.

        I don't think that this problem was discussed yet in a forum
        where the implementers
        were present.

        Henry

        >
        > --
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Kingsley Idehen
        > Founder & CEO
        > OpenLink Software
        > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
        <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
        > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
        <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
        > Twitter/Identi.ca <http://Identi.ca> handle: @kidehen
        > Google+ Profile:
        https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
        > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

        Social Web Architect
        http://bblfish.net/



    Social Web Architect
    http://bblfish.net/




--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen




Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to