W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Link Header draft

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:25:13 +1100
Message-Id: <D3F1DD4E-CC33-4EA1-A1A8-E128E2D41F85@mnot.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

The draft reviving the Link header <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ 
public/idindex.cgi?command=id_detail&id=14833> expired a few weeks  
ago, and I've received questions from a number of different folks  
about its status, because they want to use it.

The -00 draft <http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link- 
header-00.txt> was pretty much a cut-and-paste of the text from  
2068's appendix, so that there wouldn't be any conflicts with  
existing users of the header. One request I received was to align the  
header with current usage of the Link element in HTML <http:// 
www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#edef-LINK>, e.g.:
* Remove the "rev" attribute (apparently, this is happening in HTML5).
* Remove the "anchor" attribute, or specify requirements for UAs more  
closely.
* Add a "media" attribute, to allow stylesheets to be used.

My concern is that significantly changing the existing syntax or  
semantics may make getting it out the door a problem, and my  
inclination is to leave it as is, because extension parameters can  
always be defined, and most of the uses I've seen for this aren't for  
UAs, but rather for building new protocols (e.g., OpenID).

Do people have any thoughts? Is the -00 draft good enough?

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2007 08:25:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT