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

Re: Link Header draft

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:39:30 +1100
Message-Id: <9F833583-404C-43D9-95A1-81E12A2A7F59@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On 2007/01/29, at 2:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Mark Nottingham schrieb:
>> ...
>> Do people have any thoughts? Is the -00 draft good enough?
>
> 1) I would recommend not to remove or add things based on what  
> HTML5 may say right now. This is a moving target.

Agreed.

> 2) Not sure whether there is a problem with "anchor". Maybe it  
> would benefit from an example, though.
>
> 3) "media" sounds like an interesting use case -- if we have more  
> than one UA implementing this, it may be worth documenting.
>
> Another than that, draft 00 also defines "Profile" and "Link- 
> Template". Maybe it would make sense to split those into a separate  
> document, to clearly distinguish between what's-been-there-all-the- 
> time and new stuff?

My biggest concern at this point is navigating through the process  
(considering that this is effectively replacing/re-specifying  
something in the "old stuff" Appendix of a Standards-Track RFC). If  
splitting helps do that, yes.

On a different note -

The use cases I've heard of so far are with things like OpenID,  
GRDDL, etc.; there may also be use cases with Atom. I do have some  
concern about collisions between link relations identifiers in  
different formats (because <link> in Atom and HTML, for example, are  
slightly different things).

While Profile acts as a name space for the link relations, I'm not  
certain it'll be respected. Other approaches that come to mind include;

1) Specifying that the name space of the link relations is media type- 
specific, and have a registry for each.

2) Specifying a whole new header *instead* of Link that allows a URI  
for the link relation; establish a registry that the relation URI is  
relative to, independent of media type (still allowing them to use  
absolute URIs if they like).

#1 seems workable, but it does require people to register their  
relations.

#2 feels OK, *except* that somebody using an Atom link relation, for  
example, would have to do something like
    New-Link: <http://example.org/>; rel="atom/self"
rather than
    Link: <http://example.org/>; rel="self"
even though in both cases their content would contain
   <atom:link href="http://example.org/" rel="self"/>

Overall, I'd like to reuse Link if at all possible, to avoid the  
possibility of a fork. Thoughts?

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2007 23:39:54 GMT

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