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: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:02:25 -0700
To: "'Phil Archer'" <parcher@icra.org>
Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003001c8aa12$6b5699f0$0202a8c0@T60>

Phil Archer wrote:
> I can see that that would work. Would IANA registered links 
> therefore be as simple as:
> 
> stylesheet: /styles.css  ?

It depends on whether there is a need to be able to do thinks like "find and
parse all the links, regardless of the link relation". My suggestion assumed
that was necessary; if so, then the "-Links" suffix (or something like it)
and the uniform syntax would be needed. If "find and parse all the links" is
not an important use case, then no such convention would be needed at all.

> Specifying something with the full IANA namespace would become
> 
> www.iana.org-assignments-link-relations.html-stylesheet: /styles.css

You could do that, but I don't think it is a good idea. I wasn't trying to
suggest a solution for converting IRIs into tokens to be used as header
field names (which would never gain acceptance), nor was I trying to provide
some way of automatically mapping Atom link relations to HTTP header fields
(which isn't a good idea anyway). I was just saying that if somebody wants
to have a "private use" HTTP header field, prefixing the header field name
with their domain name is reasonable way of avoiding collisions.

Regards,
Brian
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:02:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:47 GMT