Subject: [link-relations] An Internet Draft template for writing a Link Relation specification

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 16:13:33 +0100

Hi,

to make it easier to write an Internet Draft defining a Link Relation 
(with the goal of publishing as RFC), I have created a small template.

It uses the RFC2629-syntax, as consumed by xml2rfc.tcl (web service at 
xml.resource.org) and rfc2629.xslt 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html>). (*)

Additional material:

Slides created by the RFC Production Center: 
<ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/lifecycle79.pdf> and 
<ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial.latest.pdf>

"Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts": 
<http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html>

Feedback about the template appreciated...

Julian

(*) For RFC2629/xml2rfc related questions, the best place to start is 
<http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>; feel free to 
cc me on questions.

---

From: Justin Cormack <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:48:02 +0000

You are making it easy! I am happy to write 'canonical' if no one else
wants to.

Justin

On 5 Dec 2010, at 15:13, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> to make it easier to write an Internet Draft defining a Link Relation (with the goal of publishing as RFC), I have created a small template.
>
> It uses the RFC2629-syntax, as consumed by xml2rfc.tcl (web service at xml.resource.org) and rfc2629.xslt (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html>). (*)
>
> Additional material:
>
> Slides created by the RFC Production Center: <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/lifecycle79.pdf> and <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial.latest.pdf>
>
> "Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts": <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html>
>
> (*) For RFC2629/xml2rfc related questions, the best place to start is <http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>; feel free to cc me on questions.
> <link-relation-id-template.xml>
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:40:49 +0100

> You are making it easy! I am happy to write 'canonical' if no one else

Hi Justin,

That sounds like a very good idea to me.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Tim Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:36:25 -0500

Thanks for this Julian, this seems much more approachable.  I'm
curious about process with these.

I gather there's two things that need to occur:  1) an Informational
RFC through the Independent Submission process and 2) A mail here to
ask for it to be added to the registry.

What's the process for getting these reviewed/discussing prior to 1?
Would it be appropriate to turn this mailing-list into a place for
discussing candidate link relation types - with an appropriate subject
label (e.g. [PROPOSAL])?  Or is it typical to just submit it directly
to through the form?

Thanks,
--tim

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to make it easier to write an Internet Draft defining a Link Relation (with
> the goal of publishing as RFC), I have created a small template.
>
> <http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>; feel free to cc me
> on questions.
>

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:59:33 +1100

We're happy to give advice about what makes a good relation, specification text, etc. here, and asking for that advice early on, rather than last minute, is much preferred. :) 

Generally, though, the discussion of a relation itself should probably happen within the community that's appropriate to it -- whether that's HTML5, uFormats, RDF, etc. We will try to get the right people involved if something starts here, of course, but it's easier when the community hammers out the basics ahead of time, so we're not minting things that aren't connected to running code.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 09:50:23 +0100

On 07.12.2010 03:59, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...

Yup.

If there's no other place, apps-discuss or the atom-syntax may be good 
choices. (The draft template says "apps-discuss").

However, if there are question with respect to how to phrase the 
definition, such as with respect to media formats or validity in certain 
contexts by all means post them here...

Best regards, Julian