Re: [xri] Version Control Commit by blade

[Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>]

not sure which commit these were actually on, but i have two  
comments.  You modified Section 2.4.1 to read:

> The one distinction is that link relationships described by the  
> <Link> element are between the resource described by the XRD (the  
> context resource) and the linked resources (the target resources),  
> and not between the XRD document itself and the linked resource.

The addition here are the two parenthetical statements, "context  
resource" and "target resource".  Both of these are new terms that are  
not present anywhere else in the spec.  Some time ago we did away with  
the term "target resource" in favor of "linked resource".  We also  
consistently use the phrase "resource described by the XRD" throughout  
the spec.  It is a mouthful, and I'm not terribly fond of it, but it  
is accurate and the best we could come up with.  I don't disagree that  
this sentence can be a little confusing with all the "resources" being  
thrown about, but I'm concerned about throwing in new terminology here  
that isn't at all consistent with the rest of the spec.


You added the following paragraph to the end of Section 2.5.1:

> New relation types between resources must follow the extensibility  
> and registration requirements defined in [HTTP Link Header].

While I don't disagree with this, I'm curious if it's necessary.  The  
whole reason link-header had to create a registry is because it is  
using tokens for registered values, and only using URIs for extended  
values.  XRD is specifically using URIs only, so we don't really care  
about the token values.  The universal rule of URIs is that you don't  
make up new URIs in namespaces you don't own.  That would imply that  
you can't make up a new relationship in the "http://www.iana.org/assignment/relation 
" unless you've properly registered it.  Now, I do like having some  
kind of reference because it instructs publishers how to format those  
token values as URIs, but the wording of the above paragraph seems out  
of place, given how XRD uses these values.