On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote: > heck, I have draft spec on this since Firefox needs this, which I > think dewitt has seen.
> I'll link it when I'm not on a bus..
> Mike
> On 10/8/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: >> +1 to adding UpdateUrl and UpdateInterval to the core spec and namespace.
>> -DeWitt
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:45 PM, pete.p...@gmail.com >> <pete.p...@gmail.com>wrote:
The only missing bit would be the UpdateInterval. Which should really be solved with standard HTTP cache headers anyway, so perhaps we don't even need it...
> Needs to catch up to some of the other 1.1 stuff, like the changes to > url types. we might also just want <UpdateUrl> instead, as DeWitt > commented.
> Other than that, thoughts?
> -- Mike
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > heck, I have draft spec on this since Firefox needs this, which I > > think dewitt has seen.
> > I'll link it when I'm not on a bus..
> > Mike
> > On 10/8/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > >> +1 to adding UpdateUrl and UpdateInterval to the core spec and > namespace.
> >> -DeWitt
> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:45 PM, pete.p...@gmail.com > >> <pete.p...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>> Hi there, > >>> Can an autoupdate mechanism be added to the spec so installed plugin > >>> checks back to see if there's a more current version? > >>> This is in reference to
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:21 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > Oh, that's interesting. Combining that with Brandon's Url 'rel' spec and > the existing OpenSearch description document mimetype we get:
> The only missing bit would be the UpdateInterval. Which should really be > solved with standard HTTP cache headers anyway, so perhaps we don't even > need it...
> -DeWitt
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Needs to catch up to some of the other 1.1 stuff, like the changes to >> url types. we might also just want <UpdateUrl> instead, as DeWitt >> commented.
>> Other than that, thoughts?
>> -- Mike
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > heck, I have draft spec on this since Firefox needs this, which I >> > think dewitt has seen.
>> > I'll link it when I'm not on a bus..
>> > Mike
>> > On 10/8/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: >> >> +1 to adding UpdateUrl and UpdateInterval to the core spec and >> namespace.
>> >> -DeWitt
>> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:45 PM, pete.p...@gmail.com >> >> <pete.p...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >>> Hi there, >> >>> Can an autoupdate mechanism be added to the spec so installed plugin >> >>> checks back to see if there's a more current version? >> >>> This is in reference to
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:21 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > The only missing bit would be the UpdateInterval. Which should really be > solved with standard HTTP cache headers anyway, so perhaps we don't even > need it...
We needed it in the past for Sherlock plugins so we could specify the value for app shipped plugins. Not sure if there's a better way to specify that in flat files on disk.
Couldn't the browser ping the server (at the URL provided) at startup the first time, then check back every now and again after the cache header value has timed out?
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:21 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > > The only missing bit would be the UpdateInterval. Which should really be > > solved with standard HTTP cache headers anyway, so perhaps we don't even > > need it...
> We needed it in the past for Sherlock plugins so we could specify the > value for app shipped plugins. Not sure if there's a better way to > specify that in flat files on disk.
If you mean on first use, yeah, we could do that. I suppose with the spec requirement to only check when being used we don't need an initial interval, just check for updates if you haven't, and then use the server response to set the next threshold before you'll check again.
As a note, the requirement to check only when in use is designed to minimize privacy concerns. If you check while searching anyway there's not much the site can learn that you didn't already tell them about when and how you're using the UA in question. It also minimizes/eliminates connections to sites that you are not actually connected to, which I know many users have taken issue with in the past (f.e. "why am I connecting to example.com while idle?").
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:02 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > Couldn't the browser ping the server (at the URL provided) at startup the > first time, then check back every now and again after the cache header value > has timed out?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you mean on first use, yeah, we could do that. I suppose with the > spec requirement to only check when being used we don't need an > initial interval, just check for updates if you haven't, and then use > the server response to set the next threshold before you'll check > again.
> As a note, the requirement to check only when in use is designed to > minimize privacy concerns. If you check while searching anyway > there's not much the site can learn that you didn't already tell them > about when and how you're using the UA in question. It also > minimizes/eliminates connections to sites that you are not actually > connected to, which I know many users have taken issue with in the > past (f.e. "why am I connecting to example.com while idle?").
> -- Mike
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:02 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > > Couldn't the browser ping the server (at the URL provided) at startup the > > first time, then check back every now and again after the cache header > value > > has timed out?
Not all clients are browsers :) Think of SharePoint / MS Search
Server.
Then again, I think most clients would be capable of determining a
suitable update interval. It doesn't really seem necessary for a
server to specify that (and if it did it could just use the HTTP cache
header as you suggested).
Also, +1 on using rel="search" for this!
On Oct 13, 9:02 pm, "DeWitt Clinton" <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
> Couldn't the browser ping the server (at the URL provided) at startup the
> first time, then check back every now and again after the cache header value
> has timed out?
> -DeWitt
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:21 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
> > > The only missing bit would be the UpdateInterval. Which should really be
> > > solved with standard HTTP cache headers anyway, so perhaps we don't even
> > > need it...
> > We needed it in the past for Sherlock plugins so we could specify the
> > value for app shipped plugins. Not sure if there's a better way to
> > specify that in flat files on disk.
This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that this has anything to do with updates to the description file itself, based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure that the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to me). I think rel="update" would probably be better.
> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that > this has anything to do with updates to the description file itself, > based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're > referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure that > the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different > contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to me). > I think rel="update" would probably be better.
>> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file itself, >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure that >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to me). >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
I agree now that rel="search" is bad. While it points to a description document, that endpoint doesn't describe a way to search the doc itself, so it is inconsistent with the other places we use it.
Thus I'm leaning toward rel="self" just like Atom. This has the added benefit of being a mechanism for declaring the canonical URL from within the document itself, just in case there are multiple ways to retrieve it.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> self is ok, but less obvious. Update has the least ambiguity.
> If I proposed autoupdate, I'll suggest update is better, since it's > not always automatic.
> -mike.
> On 10/16/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > > Fair enough. And rel="self" works as well, given that's how Atom does > it.
> > So we have proposals now for:
> > rel="update"
> > rel="autoupdate"
> > rel="search"
> > rel="self"
> > Other proposals? Vote?
> > -DeWitt
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> > wrote: > >> > Wait, nevermind inventing a new rel value. Just reuse "search":
> >> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that > >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file itself, > >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're > >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure that > >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different > >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to me). > >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > Unfortunately rel="update" is entirely new.
> I agree now that rel="search" is bad. While it points to a description > document, that endpoint doesn't describe a way to search the doc itself, so > it is inconsistent with the other places we use it.
> Thus I'm leaning toward rel="self" just like Atom. This has the added > benefit of being a mechanism for declaring the canonical URL from within the > document itself, just in case there are multiple ways to retrieve it.
> -DeWitt
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> self is ok, but less obvious. Update has the least ambiguity.
>> If I proposed autoupdate, I'll suggest update is better, since it's >> not always automatic.
>> -mike.
>> On 10/16/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: >> > Fair enough. And rel="self" works as well, given that's how Atom does >> > it.
>> > So we have proposals now for:
>> > rel="update"
>> > rel="autoupdate"
>> > rel="search"
>> > rel="self"
>> > Other proposals? Vote?
>> > -DeWitt
>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Wait, nevermind inventing a new rel value. Just reuse "search":
>> >> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that >> >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file itself, >> >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're >> >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure that >> >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different >> >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to me). >> >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
I don't understand why it being entirely new is a problem, given that we're defining the language. "rel=update" is about as intuitive as we can get without being overly verbose. rel="self" doesn't really mean anything to me.
My confusion probably stems from not being familiar with whatever specification defines the other rel values that have been proposed - forgive me if there's an obvious connection that I'm missing. Does the inconsistency of defining our own rel value in this case really outweigh the ambiguity of using "rel=self"? What are we trying to be consistent with?
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: > Unfortunately rel="update" is entirely new.
> I agree now that rel="search" is bad. While it points to a description > document, that endpoint doesn't describe a way to search the doc itself, so > it is inconsistent with the other places we use it.
> Thus I'm leaning toward rel="self" just like Atom. This has the added > benefit of being a mechanism for declaring the canonical URL from within the > document itself, just in case there are multiple ways to retrieve it.
> -DeWitt
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> self is ok, but less obvious. Update has the least ambiguity.
>> If I proposed autoupdate, I'll suggest update is better, since it's >> not always automatic.
>> -mike.
>> On 10/16/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote: >> > Fair enough. And rel="self" works as well, given that's how Atom does >> > it.
>> > So we have proposals now for:
>> > rel="update"
>> > rel="autoupdate"
>> > rel="search"
>> > rel="self"
>> > Other proposals? Vote?
>> > -DeWitt
>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Wait, nevermind inventing a new rel value. Just reuse "search":
>> >> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that >> >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file itself, >> >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're >> >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure that >> >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different >> >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to me). >> >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
I don't think the new bit matters as much as the idea of it
representing the canonical location of the descriptor, which isn't
solely useful for update purposes.
DeWitt, do we have anything else to deal with here? Can we get this
rolled into Draft 4 ASAP?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why it being entirely new is a problem, given that
> we're defining the language. "rel=update" is about as intuitive as we
> can get without being overly verbose. rel="self" doesn't really mean
> anything to me.
> My confusion probably stems from not being familiar with whatever
> specification defines the other rel values that have been proposed -
> forgive me if there's an obvious connection that I'm missing. Does the
> inconsistency of defining our own rel value in this case really
> outweigh the ambiguity of using "rel=self"? What are we trying to be
> consistent with?
> Gavin
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
>> Unfortunately rel="update" is entirely new.
>> I agree now that rel="search" is bad. While it points to a description
>> document, that endpoint doesn't describe a way to search the doc itself, so
>> it is inconsistent with the other places we use it.
>> Thus I'm leaning toward rel="self" just like Atom. This has the added
>> benefit of being a mechanism for declaring the canonical URL from within the
>> document itself, just in case there are multiple ways to retrieve it.
>> -DeWitt
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> self is ok, but less obvious. Update has the least ambiguity.
>>> If I proposed autoupdate, I'll suggest update is better, since it's
>>> not always automatic.
>>> -mike.
>>> On 10/16/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
>>> > Fair enough. And rel="self" works as well, given that's how Atom does
>>> > it.
>>> > So we have proposals now for:
>>> > rel="update"
>>> > rel="autoupdate"
>>> > rel="search"
>>> > rel="self"
>>> > Other proposals? Vote?
>>> > -DeWitt
>>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Wait, nevermind inventing a new rel value. Just reuse "search":
>>> >> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that
>>> >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file itself,
>>> >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're
>>> >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure that
>>> >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different
>>> >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to me).
>>> >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
Yes -- is consensus that "self" is okay then? Unless I hear a strong
objection (Gavin?) then I'm going to document it as such in Draft 4 by
tomorrow. I'll do this as part of a more general list of 'rel' values.
We'll have to decide how much to document about how/when clients should
refresh rel="self" urls, but I'm inclined to leave most of the
implementation details to the vendors. Let me get the draft text out and
you guys tell me what you think.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the new bit matters as much as the idea of it
> representing the canonical location of the descriptor, which isn't
> solely useful for update purposes.
> DeWitt, do we have anything else to deal with here? Can we get this
> rolled into Draft 4 ASAP?
> -- Mike
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't understand why it being entirely new is a problem, given that
> > we're defining the language. "rel=update" is about as intuitive as we
> > can get without being overly verbose. rel="self" doesn't really mean
> > anything to me.
> > My confusion probably stems from not being familiar with whatever
> > specification defines the other rel values that have been proposed -
> > forgive me if there's an obvious connection that I'm missing. Does the
> > inconsistency of defining our own rel value in this case really
> > outweigh the ambiguity of using "rel=self"? What are we trying to be
> > consistent with?
> > Gavin
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
> >> Unfortunately rel="update" is entirely new.
> >> I agree now that rel="search" is bad. While it points to a description
> >> document, that endpoint doesn't describe a way to search the doc itself,
> so
> >> it is inconsistent with the other places we use it.
> >> Thus I'm leaning toward rel="self" just like Atom. This has the added
> >> benefit of being a mechanism for declaring the canonical URL from within
> the
> >> document itself, just in case there are multiple ways to retrieve it.
> >> -DeWitt
> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> self is ok, but less obvious. Update has the least ambiguity.
> >>> If I proposed autoupdate, I'll suggest update is better, since it's
> >>> not always automatic.
> >>> -mike.
> >>> On 10/16/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
> >>> > Fair enough. And rel="self" works as well, given that's how Atom
> does
> >>> > it.
> >>> > So we have proposals now for:
> >>> > rel="update"
> >>> > rel="autoupdate"
> >>> > rel="search"
> >>> > rel="self"
> >>> > Other proposals? Vote?
> >>> > -DeWitt
> >>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > Wait, nevermind inventing a new rel value. Just reuse "search":
> >>> >> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that
> >>> >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file itself,
> >>> >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're
> >>> >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure
> that
> >>> >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different
> >>> >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to
> me).
> >>> >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
I'm fine with self. I've answered my own question about where it comes
from - I wasn't really aware of its use in the context of RSS/Atom, so
it seemed rather arbitrary and confusing.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
> Yes -- is consensus that "self" is okay then? Unless I hear a strong
> objection (Gavin?) then I'm going to document it as such in Draft 4 by
> tomorrow. I'll do this as part of a more general list of 'rel' values.
> We'll have to decide how much to document about how/when clients should
> refresh rel="self" urls, but I'm inclined to leave most of the
> implementation details to the vendors. Let me get the draft text out and
> you guys tell me what you think.
> -DeWitt
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think the new bit matters as much as the idea of it
>> representing the canonical location of the descriptor, which isn't
>> solely useful for update purposes.
>> DeWitt, do we have anything else to deal with here? Can we get this
>> rolled into Draft 4 ASAP?
>> -- Mike
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I don't understand why it being entirely new is a problem, given that
>> > we're defining the language. "rel=update" is about as intuitive as we
>> > can get without being overly verbose. rel="self" doesn't really mean
>> > anything to me.
>> > My confusion probably stems from not being familiar with whatever
>> > specification defines the other rel values that have been proposed -
>> > forgive me if there's an obvious connection that I'm missing. Does the
>> > inconsistency of defining our own rel value in this case really
>> > outweigh the ambiguity of using "rel=self"? What are we trying to be
>> > consistent with?
>> > Gavin
>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
>> >> Unfortunately rel="update" is entirely new.
>> >> I agree now that rel="search" is bad. While it points to a description
>> >> document, that endpoint doesn't describe a way to search the doc
>> >> itself, so
>> >> it is inconsistent with the other places we use it.
>> >> Thus I'm leaning toward rel="self" just like Atom. This has the added
>> >> benefit of being a mechanism for declaring the canonical URL from
>> >> within the
>> >> document itself, just in case there are multiple ways to retrieve it.
>> >> -DeWitt
>> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> self is ok, but less obvious. Update has the least ambiguity.
>> >>> If I proposed autoupdate, I'll suggest update is better, since it's
>> >>> not always automatic.
>> >>> -mike.
>> >>> On 10/16/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
>> >>> > Fair enough. And rel="self" works as well, given that's how Atom
>> >>> > does
>> >>> > it.
>> >>> > So we have proposals now for:
>> >>> > rel="update"
>> >>> > rel="autoupdate"
>> >>> > rel="search"
>> >>> > rel="self"
>> >>> > Other proposals? Vote?
>> >>> > -DeWitt
>> >>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Sharp
>> >>> > <gavin.sh...@gmail.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > Wait, nevermind inventing a new rel value. Just reuse "search":
>> >>> >> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all that
>> >>> >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file
>> >>> >> itself,
>> >>> >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're
>> >>> >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure
>> >>> >> that
>> >>> >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different
>> >>> >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to
>> >>> >> me).
>> >>> >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm fine with self. I've answered my own question about where it comes
> from - I wasn't really aware of its use in the context of RSS/Atom, so
> it seemed rather arbitrary and confusing.
> Gavin
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
> > Yes -- is consensus that "self" is okay then? Unless I hear a strong
> > objection (Gavin?) then I'm going to document it as such in Draft 4 by
> > tomorrow. I'll do this as part of a more general list of 'rel' values.
> > We'll have to decide how much to document about how/when clients should
> > refresh rel="self" urls, but I'm inclined to leave most of the
> > implementation details to the vendors. Let me get the draft text out and
> > you guys tell me what you think.
> > -DeWitt
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't think the new bit matters as much as the idea of it
> >> representing the canonical location of the descriptor, which isn't
> >> solely useful for update purposes.
> >> DeWitt, do we have anything else to deal with here? Can we get this
> >> rolled into Draft 4 ASAP?
> >> -- Mike
> >> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I don't understand why it being entirely new is a problem, given that
> >> > we're defining the language. "rel=update" is about as intuitive as we
> >> > can get without being overly verbose. rel="self" doesn't really mean
> >> > anything to me.
> >> > My confusion probably stems from not being familiar with whatever
> >> > specification defines the other rel values that have been proposed -
> >> > forgive me if there's an obvious connection that I'm missing. Does the
> >> > inconsistency of defining our own rel value in this case really
> >> > outweigh the ambiguity of using "rel=self"? What are we trying to be
> >> > consistent with?
> >> > Gavin
> >> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net>
> wrote:
> >> >> Unfortunately rel="update" is entirely new.
> >> >> I agree now that rel="search" is bad. While it points to a
> description
> >> >> document, that endpoint doesn't describe a way to search the doc
> >> >> itself, so
> >> >> it is inconsistent with the other places we use it.
> >> >> Thus I'm leaning toward rel="self" just like Atom. This has the
> added
> >> >> benefit of being a mechanism for declaring the canonical URL from
> >> >> within the
> >> >> document itself, just in case there are multiple ways to retrieve it.
> >> >> -DeWitt
> >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>> self is ok, but less obvious. Update has the least ambiguity.
> >> >>> If I proposed autoupdate, I'll suggest update is better, since it's
> >> >>> not always automatic.
> >> >>> -mike.
> >> >>> On 10/16/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
> >> >>> > Fair enough. And rel="self" works as well, given that's how Atom
> >> >>> > does
> >> >>> > it.
> >> >>> > So we have proposals now for:
> >> >>> > rel="update"
> >> >>> > rel="autoupdate"
> >> >>> > rel="search"
> >> >>> > rel="self"
> >> >>> > Other proposals? Vote?
> >> >>> > -DeWitt
> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Sharp
> >> >>> > <gavin.sh...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM, DeWitt Clinton <
> dew...@unto.net>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > Wait, nevermind inventing a new rel value. Just reuse
> "search":
> >> >>> >> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all
> that
> >> >>> >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file
> >> >>> >> itself,
> >> >>> >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're
> >> >>> >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not sure
> >> >>> >> that
> >> >>> >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different
> >> >>> >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't to
> >> >>> >> me).
> >> >>> >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
We've already implemented support for rel="self" update support in
Firefox 3.1-pre builds, for what it's worth. The feature will be
included in Firefox 3.1 beta 3 which should be out in the next few
weeks or so. It's not too late to change the attribute we check before
we ship Firefox 3.1, assuming we can reach agreement relatively
quickly.
An OpenSearch description file is only useful insofar as it describes
how to retrieve other information, and isn't likely to be accessed via
more than one URI, so the "canonical URI" concept doesn't have the
right semantic in my mind - but that's just quibbling. I don't really
feel strongly about this, so I suppose by default I'd favor the status
quo.
> My bias to stick with the latter ('self') because people here are already
> building on it, but I felt a passing obligation to at least ask.
> -DeWitt
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm fine with self. I've answered my own question about where it comes
>> from - I wasn't really aware of its use in the context of RSS/Atom, so
>> it seemed rather arbitrary and confusing.
>> Gavin
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
>> > Yes -- is consensus that "self" is okay then? Unless I hear a strong
>> > objection (Gavin?) then I'm going to document it as such in Draft 4 by
>> > tomorrow. I'll do this as part of a more general list of 'rel' values.
>> > We'll have to decide how much to document about how/when clients should
>> > refresh rel="self" urls, but I'm inclined to leave most of the
>> > implementation details to the vendors. Let me get the draft text out
>> > and
>> > you guys tell me what you think.
>> > -DeWitt
>> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I don't think the new bit matters as much as the idea of it
>> >> representing the canonical location of the descriptor, which isn't
>> >> solely useful for update purposes.
>> >> DeWitt, do we have anything else to deal with here? Can we get this
>> >> rolled into Draft 4 ASAP?
>> >> -- Mike
>> >> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Gavin Sharp <gavin.sh...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I don't understand why it being entirely new is a problem, given that
>> >> > we're defining the language. "rel=update" is about as intuitive as we
>> >> > can get without being overly verbose. rel="self" doesn't really mean
>> >> > anything to me.
>> >> > My confusion probably stems from not being familiar with whatever
>> >> > specification defines the other rel values that have been proposed -
>> >> > forgive me if there's an obvious connection that I'm missing. Does
>> >> > the
>> >> > inconsistency of defining our own rel value in this case really
>> >> > outweigh the ambiguity of using "rel=self"? What are we trying to be
>> >> > consistent with?
>> >> > Gavin
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Unfortunately rel="update" is entirely new.
>> >> >> I agree now that rel="search" is bad. While it points to a
>> >> >> description
>> >> >> document, that endpoint doesn't describe a way to search the doc
>> >> >> itself, so
>> >> >> it is inconsistent with the other places we use it.
>> >> >> Thus I'm leaning toward rel="self" just like Atom. This has the
>> >> >> added
>> >> >> benefit of being a mechanism for declaring the canonical URL from
>> >> >> within the
>> >> >> document itself, just in case there are multiple ways to retrieve
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >> -DeWitt
>> >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mike Connor <mcon...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> self is ok, but less obvious. Update has the least ambiguity.
>> >> >>> If I proposed autoupdate, I'll suggest update is better, since it's
>> >> >>> not always automatic.
>> >> >>> -mike.
>> >> >>> On 10/16/08, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@unto.net> wrote:
>> >> >>> > Fair enough. And rel="self" works as well, given that's how Atom
>> >> >>> > does
>> >> >>> > it.
>> >> >>> > So we have proposals now for:
>> >> >>> > rel="update"
>> >> >>> > rel="autoupdate"
>> >> >>> > rel="search"
>> >> >>> > rel="self"
>> >> >>> > Other proposals? Vote?
>> >> >>> > -DeWitt
>> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Gavin Sharp
>> >> >>> > <gavin.sh...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM, DeWitt Clinton
>> >> >>> >> <dew...@unto.net>
>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> > Wait, nevermind inventing a new rel value. Just reuse
>> >> >>> >> > "search":
>> >> >>> >> This seems somewhat confusing to me - it's not obvious at all
>> >> >>> >> that
>> >> >>> >> this has anything to do with updates to the description file
>> >> >>> >> itself,
>> >> >>> >> based solely on the markup. Assuming by "reuse search" you're
>> >> >>> >> referring to the "rel" value in <link rel="search">, I'm not
>> >> >>> >> sure
>> >> >>> >> that
>> >> >>> >> the reuse is very valuable - they're used in totally different
>> >> >>> >> contexts, and the connection isn't obvious (at least it wasn't
>> >> >>> >> to
>> >> >>> >> me).
>> >> >>> >> I think rel="update" would probably be better.
