exact value syntax and value requirements

[dret]

the current text is a bit odd, and does not specify a value syntax (ABNF). it should, and very likely should reuse syntax fragments from RFC 8288.
also, the phrasing seems a bit odd to make both registered and extension link relation references a SHOULD. these are the values as defined by the relevant spec, so this simply is how values MUST be referenced or they are not legal values as per RFC 8288.

[dret]

ooooops, seems to be partly a duplicate of #6 but editorial language remark still stands.

[inadarei]

RFC was updated to 8288 per #6, but I am not sure which part of the spec you mean when you say "phrasing seems a bit odd".

Can you please submit a PR with proposed changes, so I can see what exactly you mean? Thanks!

[dret]

On 2018-01-16 00:41, Irakli Nadareishvili wrote: Can you please submit a PR with proposed changes, so I can see what exactly you mean? Thanks!

deferring the editorial part for now, but more importantly, this issue was also about the parameter and value syntax. ABNF is what people usually use, and helpful for people implementing the spec. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7240#section-4.2 is an example for how that's usually done. in most cases there is not that much to do (reusing syntax elements from other specs is the rule), but it's important.