From nickshanks@gmail.com Mon Nov 25 02:30:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2BE1ACC89 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 02:30:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ARnZrmtZvyTs for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 02:30:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238B01ACC7D for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 02:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y6so3100434lbh.0 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 02:30:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=+MB3JvgOq84WSFEyRPpKq2q6H9IRs2IUYjGqoydLlM4=; b=iuvqhJfLNDULXvoN/jVL73v0E+tJ6MD+4q1MUEIur4rOq8k0cwJz030l8LWM1gIEdN the54LB4qB/EQPywI5x2BdgebhK3KwoBJtZYJjivvUrPYQ796TW34upBsVcuIEfjyIYN 27NpcLMWcRk35mSU5FmzMrSVvi6uscWzfeRvAuNjuOib4JJMDHiu3ADfVUuoTJYLUR1m 4be0cgbZeWqgSc4g3oaMrbu9eHvJDZQ2HbP6Gn93+3YnC8L80bVNu3DaGNUJle6RrlvV 5aYKyJhJaCsepZqBvmZF/Kiw8YQG8PFblYNN9VD5hR8nc/bE8/iZzp5PLRDV9mWDwP94 GVJQ== X-Received: by 10.152.181.98 with SMTP id dv2mr22594284lac.15.1385375448717; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 02:30:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: nickshanks@gmail.com Received: by 10.114.29.102 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 02:30:08 -0800 (PST) From: Nicholas Shanks Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:30:08 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9fAGDchgtMyxmjlyGTN2ELwxl9E Message-ID: Subject: Some suggestions for link relations (without an I-D to put them in) To: link-relations@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:30:54 -0000 The main purpose of this email is to test that I receive emails from this list, as I haven't received any messages from it yet (having subscribed in late May). The secondary purpose is to suggest some link relations which don't currently have a home. Perhaps someone can pick them up for their I-D? "top" == the result of following a chain of "up" links until no more "up" links are found. "home" == the starting URL of a RESTful API. Useful to send as a minimal resource instead of a 204 response. (think of the top-left logo on a website, going to the site's "homepage") "delete-form" == a link to a resource providing a form which can be used to delete the context resource (basically, this is an "are you sure?" dialog before the UA sends a DELETE). This is useful for web apps. If the site/API is entirely hierarchical, the first two could conceivably point to the same URL. If the site has sub-sites (e.g. geocities), then the home link may point to a sub-site home page, which may itself have an "up" link. If the site/API is not hierarchical, but has hierarchical subparts, then "top" could point from some deep resource to a resource which is not "home", but is linked to from the "home" resource. So I think the two are sufficiently differentiated to suggest both. Also, I think it would be useful to define a suffix, "-item" which can be appended to any link relation which is defined as pointing to a collection. The "foo-item" relation would point to the "item" resources within that collection. e.g. "archive" == "Refers to a collection of records, documents, or other materials of historical interest." ergo: "archive-item" is any of the "item" links from the resource that would be obtained by following the "archive" link from the current resource. The goal here is to increase productivity by omitting unnecessary steps (specially I am thinking of HTML pages, and not making users go through an intermediary collection resource to get to items within that collection). Background: In my API I have a "client" resource, which contains a link to a "sites" collection, the items of which represent a physical address from which the client business operates. In the current manifestation of our web app, users have to follow a /sites URI then choose a site from the list. A new design intends to incorporate the list of sites directly into the client resource, so a new link relation is needed, e.g. "/site", or using my suggested model: "/sites-item", in order to reduce the number of clicks required to navigate around. -- Nicholas. From dret@berkeley.edu Mon Nov 25 13:31:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57961ADFD3 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:31:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntCHMB6fZEs7 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:31:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm01fe.IST.Berkeley.EDU (cm01fe.IST.Berkeley.EDU [169.229.218.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0181ADFC1 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:31:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from c-24-6-239-29.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([24.6.239.29] helo=dretpro.local) by cm01fe.ist.berkeley.edu with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (auth plain:dret@berkeley.edu) (envelope-from ) id 1Vl3kM-0000Yk-59; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:31:12 -0800 Message-ID: <5293C19E.3020605@berkeley.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:31:10 -0800 From: Erik Wilde User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: link-relations@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham Subject: Re: Some suggestions for link relations (without an I-D to put them in) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:31:15 -0000 hello all. On 2013-11-25, 2:30 , Nicholas Shanks wrote: > "home" == the starting URL of a RESTful API. Useful to send as a > minimal resource instead of a 204 response. (think of the top-left > logo on a website, going to the site's "homepage") maybe http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-json-home would be a good place to register such a relation? while the draft does define a specific media type (a JSON one, and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-home-xml registers a derived XML one), the registered relation easily could be (and of course should be, like every link relation) made independent of the target's media type. cheers, dret. -- erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret | From jasnell@gmail.com Mon Nov 25 13:44:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEF91AE03A for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:44:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29hlFVv0iu3W for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:44:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04CA1AE039 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:44:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wo20so4829793obc.39 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:44:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=dt5n/zmPN+OhsRqHi4k1SWQd+mlQW1u3Pfeu5drNL5s=; b=g0z17Qnuq0ck1TcWjlMWvDc26Gz+zPsA47Y7pCqFcvTSARgU67NrSJU3kPgsKIphrz 5ZUNFYXCq/IIXjms0PhV2fhp65XticI8ilXsOhTbXIWrbqxHvBcaYWOjg+s+Co7k/H3M WY1rYE7hhCDoPdw3uSJOC4Pm5AtLYxxOMLu2sg9STB5tc9gbqyYwedNq1Emk3W1v5nWS V4TMw3Wxk+eAh49oVCa+3zs4mjc2lymqGGR4CnnR+4A0cZJ9/Hif+j9boAp76J11z+de SwVcXqvp2ysj+SKiyAD3mUg0GbmrhB5THNUusFvWnorWYoMrC58vjoav5RlN0hpRm8Iz qoNA== X-Received: by 10.60.98.168 with SMTP id ej8mr6963114oeb.45.1385415863608; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:44:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.98.236 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:44:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: James M Snell Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:44:03 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Some suggestions for link relations (without an I-D to put them in) To: Nicholas Shanks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: link-relations X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:44:25 -0000 Nicholas, Writing up a quick I-D to register a few new link relations is fairly painless. If you'd like to give it a shot, I could send you an empty template later on today that you could use to start. - James On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Nicholas Shanks wrote: > The main purpose of this email is to test that I receive emails from > this list, as I haven't received any messages from it yet (having > subscribed in late May). > > The secondary purpose is to suggest some link relations which don't > currently have a home. Perhaps someone can pick them up for their I-D? > > "top" == the result of following a chain of "up" links until no more > "up" links are found. > "home" == the starting URL of a RESTful API. Useful to send as a > minimal resource instead of a 204 response. (think of the top-left > logo on a website, going to the site's "homepage") > "delete-form" == a link to a resource providing a form which can be > used to delete the context resource (basically, this is an "are you > sure?" dialog before the UA sends a DELETE). This is useful for web > apps. > > If the site/API is entirely hierarchical, the first two could > conceivably point to the same URL. If the site has sub-sites (e.g. > geocities), then the home link may point to a sub-site home page, > which may itself have an "up" link. If the site/API is not > hierarchical, but has hierarchical subparts, then "top" could point > from some deep resource to a resource which is not "home", but is > linked to from the "home" resource. So I think the two are > sufficiently differentiated to suggest both. > > Also, I think it would be useful to define a suffix, "-item" which can > be appended to any link relation which is defined as pointing to a > collection. The "foo-item" relation would point to the "item" > resources within that collection. > > e.g. "archive" == "Refers to a collection of records, documents, or > other materials of historical interest." > ergo: "archive-item" is any of the "item" links from the resource that > would be obtained by following the "archive" link from the current > resource. > > The goal here is to increase productivity by omitting unnecessary > steps (specially I am thinking of HTML pages, and not making users go > through an intermediary collection resource to get to items within > that collection). > > Background: In my API I have a "client" resource, which contains a > link to a "sites" collection, the items of which represent a physical > address from which the client business operates. In the current > manifestation of our web app, users have to follow a /sites URI then > choose a site from the list. A new design intends to incorporate the > list of sites directly into the client resource, so a new link > relation is needed, e.g. "/site", or using my suggested model: > "/sites-item", in order to reduce the number of clicks required to > navigate around. > > -- > Nicholas. > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations From derhoermi@gmx.net Mon Nov 25 14:01:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47BD1AE056 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:01:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2_0mEUVO9bgu for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:01:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7581AE04E for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([91.35.12.181]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0LsOsW-1VeHp10jHM-011zLj for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:01:43 +0100 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: James M Snell Subject: Re: Some suggestions for link relations (without an I-D to put them in) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:01:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:3DKcGdKj0UrLI6+C1QIYZfJym3Ru80SCXa1hDGAZ5l1A4shQRaK SrZdiWka/bdmtYq9IEILPG2XCH8PNfNzT1TZtDnHp4cRM2Vy4AhkffJcmZX5KjIe6Ss5g/O egiOV/8w1zbd1eFuJNuvBsTcOJBo8CwsfA/NcipTvwiB6f6oa8UviYNQYfJVc8+MWC/5PzE PhWnAoDLsHuvoMwnkL0UA== Cc: link-relations X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:01:45 -0000 * James M Snell wrote: >Writing up a quick I-D to register a few new link relations is fairly >painless. If you'd like to give it a shot, I could send you an empty >template later on today that you could use to start. Hmm http://web.archive.org/*/http://paramsr.us/link-relation-types/ I thought we had something like that already, but apparently not there. Oh, and the site no longer exists... -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From mca@amundsen.com Mon Nov 25 14:47:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3BA1AE06A for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:47:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.155 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=1.63, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aVQLcRgvmGGB for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9237C1AD8CD for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id en1so6242315wid.9 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:47:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=DLlHY/l2L6IEHxk+/NwiM9FL/bcjwwu3k3Z6fB9sMVE=; b=Iv84GcV8z8Xn4AjUoYv8Z0zEze2dwXpFYDlqN6O/U8lXdH+J3SrWCmBVFEqYH81TzW 6K1Hn+60EDR+JUeG1AVCrVcridHou+96jXxBwIA7MrJlggwDXjYmgfL1twNMozr8q/YI 3Mic3RsBnLQ1ejtedgIF1pe9QqFZRqkaDeUeu0rcz8qzxUoXcbUWdo99h+CZNskqG0Ph CMLzknkvAHNf6jpNZdFCdE9+nd1jOczpycGSZMe3cPNyLJNxQ6HV0y6aJkjfOvStzBe+ I6kQJc/KVzONEd3hLppBiTNOPDkVm0CqjbtQoF/aEapIQEZ3vJ1Fl3wnvajptYd0d6gS gMmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmET886od7hD50JTtEgA7skW4IJIRaFrE5ZQ5jMdmunVc1kixZi/MYl9uvBf9/EU+NJ/Qa/ X-Received: by 10.180.185.130 with SMTP id fc2mr15358218wic.43.1385419625076; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:47:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mca@amundsen.com Received: by 10.194.55.195 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:46:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: mike amundsen Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:46:45 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 44-8acf4EQ78tCGeRscCGH0Il_s Message-ID: Subject: Re: Some suggestions for link relations (without an I-D to put them in) To: Nicholas Shanks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c350da9e35d104ec082448 Cc: link-relations X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:47:08 -0000 --001a11c350da9e35d104ec082448 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 FWIW, of the suggested values you list: "top" "home" "delete-form" and the blanket "*-item" i think "home" is useful and "delete-form" (while not one of my favorites) would go nicely w/ the existing "create-form" and "edit-form" LRVs. I think "top" is troublesome. i think the existing "first" covers use cases i can think of (including the one you cite) I am not a fan of creating a "compound" LRV or an LRV template people can use to create their own, unregistered LRVs. Instead, I think using an unique URL (per 5988) is a better approach. mamund +1.859.757.1449 skype: mca.amundsen http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com/mamund https://github.com/mamund http://www.linkedin.com/in/mamund On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Nicholas Shanks wrote: > The main purpose of this email is to test that I receive emails from > this list, as I haven't received any messages from it yet (having > subscribed in late May). > > The secondary purpose is to suggest some link relations which don't > currently have a home. Perhaps someone can pick them up for their I-D? > > "top" == the result of following a chain of "up" links until no more > "up" links are found. > "home" == the starting URL of a RESTful API. Useful to send as a > minimal resource instead of a 204 response. (think of the top-left > logo on a website, going to the site's "homepage") > "delete-form" == a link to a resource providing a form which can be > used to delete the context resource (basically, this is an "are you > sure?" dialog before the UA sends a DELETE). This is useful for web > apps. > > If the site/API is entirely hierarchical, the first two could > conceivably point to the same URL. If the site has sub-sites (e.g. > geocities), then the home link may point to a sub-site home page, > which may itself have an "up" link. If the site/API is not > hierarchical, but has hierarchical subparts, then "top" could point > from some deep resource to a resource which is not "home", but is > linked to from the "home" resource. So I think the two are > sufficiently differentiated to suggest both. > > Also, I think it would be useful to define a suffix, "-item" which can > be appended to any link relation which is defined as pointing to a > collection. The "foo-item" relation would point to the "item" > resources within that collection. > > e.g. "archive" == "Refers to a collection of records, documents, or > other materials of historical interest." > ergo: "archive-item" is any of the "item" links from the resource that > would be obtained by following the "archive" link from the current > resource. > > The goal here is to increase productivity by omitting unnecessary > steps (specially I am thinking of HTML pages, and not making users go > through an intermediary collection resource to get to items within > that collection). > > Background: In my API I have a "client" resource, which contains a > link to a "sites" collection, the items of which represent a physical > address from which the client business operates. In the current > manifestation of our web app, users have to follow a /sites URI then > choose a site from the list. A new design intends to incorporate the > list of sites directly into the client resource, so a new link > relation is needed, e.g. "/site", or using my suggested model: > "/sites-item", in order to reduce the number of clicks required to > navigate around. > > -- > Nicholas. > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > --001a11c350da9e35d104ec082448 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FWIW, of the suggested values you list:
"top"= ;
"home"
"delete-form"
an= d the blanket "*-item"

i think "home" is useful and "delete-form" (= while not one of my favorites) would go nicely w/ the existing "create= -form" and "edit-form" LRVs.

I think "top" is troublesome. i think the existing "fir= st" covers use cases i can think of (including the one you cite)
=

I am not a fan of creating a "compound" LRV o= r an LRV template people can use to create their own, unregistered LRVs. In= stead, I think using an unique URL (per 5988) is a better approach.



=

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Nichola= s Shanks <nickshanks@nickshanks.com> wrote:
The main purpose of this email is to test that I receive emails from
this list, as I haven't received any messages from it yet (having
subscribed in late May).

The secondary purpose is to suggest some link relations which don't
currently have a home. Perhaps someone can pick them up for their I-D?

"top" =3D=3D the result of following a chain of "up" li= nks until no more
"up" links are found.
"home" =3D=3D the starting URL of a RESTful API. Useful to send a= s a
minimal resource instead of a 204 response. (think of the top-left
logo on a website, going to the site's "homepage")
"delete-form" =3D=3D a link to a resource providing a form which = can be
used to delete the context resource (basically, this is an "are you sure?" dialog before the UA sends a DELETE). This is useful for web apps.

If the site/API is entirely hierarchical, the first two could
conceivably point to the same URL. If the site has sub-sites (e.g.
geocities), then the home link may point to a sub-site home page,
which may itself have an "up" link. If the site/API is not
hierarchical, but has hierarchical subparts, then "top" could poi= nt
from some deep resource to a resource which is not "home", but is=
linked to from the "home" resource. So I think the two are
sufficiently differentiated to suggest both.

Also, I think it would be useful to define a suffix, "-item" whic= h can
be appended to any link relation which is defined as pointing to a
collection. The "foo-item" relation would point to the "item= "
resources within that collection.

e.g. "archive" =3D=3D "Refers to a collection of records, do= cuments, or
other materials of historical interest."
ergo: "archive-item" is any of the "item" links from th= e resource that
would be obtained by following the "archive" link from the curren= t
resource.

The goal here is to increase productivity by omitting unnecessary
steps (specially I am thinking of HTML pages, and not making users go
through an intermediary collection resource to get to items within
that collection).

Background: In my API I have a "client" resource, which contains = a
link to a "sites" collection, the items of which represent a phys= ical
address from which the client business operates. In the current
manifestation of our web app, users have to follow a /sites URI then
choose a site from the list. A new design intends to incorporate the
list of sites directly into the client resource, so a new link
relation is needed, e.g. "/site", or using my suggested model: "/sites-item", in order to reduce the number of clicks required t= o
navigate around.

--
Nicholas.
_______________________________________________
link-relations mailing list
link-relations= @ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

--001a11c350da9e35d104ec082448--