W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:51:08 +0100
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'Mark Nottingham' <mnot@mnot.net>, 'atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080429125108.GA10942@shareable.org>

Phil Archer wrote:
> I am sympathetic to your proposal for foo-Links - it seems clear and 
> your experiments add weight to it. However, it seems to lose out on 
> flexibility. With Link, anyone can create a new relationship type by 
> providing an absolute URI, it's only relative ones that are tied to the 
> IANA namespace.
> Putting people in a tight corner will lead them to ignore some of the 
> rules and I fear you'll soon see 'links' of the type
> dunno_about_registration-Links:
> so that clashes become rather more likely.

How about:

    Generic-Link: URL=value

Which is required to be written in exactly that form, the URN denotes
the relation type, and the URN is always unquoted, absolute, and in
a canonical form.

It seems to satisfy the same easy parsing and substitution
requirements that motivate foo-Link, while providing the flexibility
of URNs for unregistered relation types.

-- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 12:51:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC