Re: Link types and profiles

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.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-profile-link-04



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 <[email protected]> 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.
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/profiles/source/
> [3] http://microformats.org/wiki/html5-profile
> [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 <[email protected]> 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
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>