Re: Feedback for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

(adding www-talk for /site-meta comments)

A separate header is easily workable, but will require a different approach to the proposed simplified /site-meta text format. It cannot be a list of Link headers without the "Link: " prefix and still support this kind of extension.

EHL


On 12/2/08 5:31 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

A separate header is by far the best way to do this.


On 02/12/2008, at 7:35 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

>
>> Well, right now there's no extension point; the target does not allow
>> templating, and a parameter can't override it (recipients will ignore
>> extension parameters they don't understand).
>>
>> One potential solution would be to state that if a link target that
>> is
>> not a syntactically valid URI-reference is reserved for future
>> extensions (so clients ignore it for now).
>
> This looks like the more promising option.
>
>> Another one would be to use a different header, such as Link-
>> Template,
>> defined in version 00 of the draft
>> (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-
>> 00#section-5>).
>
> The problem with that is the lack of equal treatment this whole
> draft is trying to establish for Link header/element. This will also
> stand in the way of the new suggestion to simplify /site-meta to
> switch to a simple text document with Link header records (with the
> "Link: " stripped).
>
>> Personally, I'd like to see this move ahead without any dependency on
>> URI templates.
>
> I agree. There is urgent need in getting this spec finalized and the
> templates discussion is far from conclusion. But there are enough
> compelling reasons to bake into this spec support for such future
> extensions. I think the suggestion to ignore non-compliant URIs is
> the best option, and I would prefer to see it indicated in the ABNF,
> but if not, a simple clarification would suffice.
>
> EHL
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/