Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Link types and profiles

Expand Messages
  • Judson Lester
    This may be a remedial question but: Is or isn t it legitimate to add link types (i.e. values for rel attributes) in document profiles?
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 22, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      This may be a remedial question but:

      Is or isn't it legitimate to add link types (i.e. values for rel attributes) in document profiles?  

      http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links : "Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in this specification. If they do so, they should use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link types. Please see the profile attribute of the HEAD element for more details."

      but

      http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#profiles : "The profile attribute of the HEAD specifies the location of a meta data profile." and goes on to strongly imply that the profile describes how to interpret META tag data, but is otherwise pretty quiet about how to use it.

      There's XMDP, of course, which tries to address link type/meta by suggesting that you define explicit rel properties - but there's sort of a semantic leap between <meta name="<property>" value="<value>"> and <link rel=<value>>

      If it is legit, why not legit to add acceptable values for any tag attribute (without describing *which* tags it's legit on)?

      Judson
    • mike amundsen
      here are some things that might help you on the subject of Link Relation Types, HTML, etc. - HTML s guidance on the use of Link Relation Types is, IMO, vague.
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 31, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        here are some things that might help you on the subject of Link Relation Types, HTML, etc.

        - HTML's guidance on the use of Link Relation Types is, IMO, vague.
        - HTML is not the only representation format where Link Relation Types can be used (re Atom, HAL, Collection+JSON, etc.)
        - the Web linking spec is a good source of recommended best practice on defining Link Relation Type values[1]
        - a much stronger and clearer guidance on HTML's use of "profile" Link Relation Type stalled in 2010[2]
        - the Microformat team (led by Tantek Celik of XMDP fame) has picked up the "profile" spec[3]
        - I led an experiment at RESTFest 2011 on using profiles w/ HTML that had pretty good results[4]

        finally, I think there is a good deal of promise in the notion of defining application-level semantics independent of a generic media type (HTML, HAL, etc.) and am continuing to work on this.  My approach is to continue to use the "profile" Link Relation Type value as a way to apply these semantics to a representation in a way very much in line w/ the way HTML4 uses "profile" and via a Link Header compatible w/ RFC5988.

        Hope this helps. 

        [4] http://amundsen.com/hypermedia/profiles/
        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 Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Judson Lester <nyarly@...> wrote:


        This may be a remedial question but:

        Is or isn't it legitimate to add link types (i.e. values for rel attributes) in document profiles?  

        http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links : "Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in this specification. If they do so, they should use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link types. Please see the profile attribute of the HEAD element for more details."

        but

        http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#profiles : "The profile attribute of the HEAD specifies the location of a meta data profile." and goes on to strongly imply that the profile describes how to interpret META tag data, but is otherwise pretty quiet about how to use it.

        There's XMDP, of course, which tries to address link type/meta by suggesting that you define explicit rel properties - but there's sort of a semantic leap between <meta name="<property>" value="<value>"> and <link rel=<value>>

        If it is legit, why not legit to add acceptable values for any tag attribute (without describing *which* tags it's legit on)?

        Judson



      • mike amundsen
        Judson: In my previous post, I left out an important link in the profile space. Erik Wilde (@dret) is working on an I-D that registers the profile Link
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 31, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Judson:

          In my previous post, I left out an important link in the "profile" space. Erik Wilde (@dret) is working on an I-D that registers the "profile" Link Relation Type with the IANA[1].

          This doc also contains some suggested (Informative) guidance on it's use w/ other media types.




          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 Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:24 AM, mike amundsen <mamund@...> wrote:
          here are some things that might help you on the subject of Link Relation Types, HTML, etc.

          - HTML's guidance on the use of Link Relation Types is, IMO, vague.
          - HTML is not the only representation format where Link Relation Types can be used (re Atom, HAL, Collection+JSON, etc.)
          - the Web linking spec is a good source of recommended best practice on defining Link Relation Type values[1]
          - a much stronger and clearer guidance on HTML's use of "profile" Link Relation Type stalled in 2010[2]
          - the Microformat team (led by Tantek Celik of XMDP fame) has picked up the "profile" spec[3]
          - I led an experiment at RESTFest 2011 on using profiles w/ HTML that had pretty good results[4]

          finally, I think there is a good deal of promise in the notion of defining application-level semantics independent of a generic media type (HTML, HAL, etc.) and am continuing to work on this.  My approach is to continue to use the "profile" Link Relation Type value as a way to apply these semantics to a representation in a way very much in line w/ the way HTML4 uses "profile" and via a Link Header compatible w/ RFC5988.

          Hope this helps. 

          [4] http://amundsen.com/hypermedia/profiles/
          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 Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Judson Lester <nyarly@...> wrote:


          This may be a remedial question but:

          Is or isn't it legitimate to add link types (i.e. values for rel attributes) in document profiles?  

          http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links : "Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in this specification. If they do so, they should use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link types. Please see the profile attribute of the HEAD element for more details."

          but

          http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#profiles : "The profile attribute of the HEAD specifies the location of a meta data profile." and goes on to strongly imply that the profile describes how to interpret META tag data, but is otherwise pretty quiet about how to use it.

          There's XMDP, of course, which tries to address link type/meta by suggesting that you define explicit rel properties - but there's sort of a semantic leap between <meta name="<property>" value="<value>"> and <link rel=<value>>

          If it is legit, why not legit to add acceptable values for any tag attribute (without describing *which* tags it's legit on)?

          Judson




        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.