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

Re: NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:36:21 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tx24avph64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 20:55:52 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> the current editor's draft of HTML5 requires User-Agents to respect the  
> HTTP Link header (as specified in RFC2068, and dropped from RFC2616) --  
> see <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-link>:
>
> "Some versions of HTTP defined a Link: header, to be processed like a  
> series of link  elements. When processing links, those must be taken  
> into consideration as well. For the purposes of ordering, links defined  
> by HTTP headers must be assumed to come before any links in the  
> document, in the order that they were given in the HTTP entity header.  
> Relative URIs in these headers must be resolved according to the rules  
> given in HTTP, not relative to base URIs set by the document (e.g. using  
> a base element or xml:base attributes). [RFC2616] [RFC2068]"
>
> So either this is just wishful thinking, or implementation support for  
> the Link header has indeed improved lately (I'll guess in FF and Opera).  
> In the latter case, we may want to re-add it in RFC2616bis.

There's also a Default-Style header. For both it's not really to me though  
what RFC 2616 would say about them though, other than maybe register the  
names.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 15:36:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT