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

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