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

Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:13 +0100
Message-ID: <47D5B189.3010007@gmx.de>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Harry Halpin wrote:
> Hi, I'm Harry Halpin, and I'm working on GRDDL (Gleaning Resource
> Descriptions from Dialects of Language) with the W3C, a rather neat
> technology that helps us get uniform metadata from diverse XML, (X)HTML,
> microformats, and (hopefully soon) HTML documents using a simple mix of
> widely deployed technologies.

Looking forward to the HTML binding :-)

> I'd just like to send a e-mail to see if we can revive Mark Nottingham's
> "HTTP Header Linking Draft", from which we in particular would like to
> see the Link and Profile headers revived [1]. What's the current status
> of this idea?

We were sort of stuck with the naming of link relations; is this a 
single space for HTML link elements, Atom link elements, and HTTP Link 
headers? If yes, what's the syntax, and where does the registry go?

I think the last discussion is around 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007OctDec/thread.html#msg46>.

> We'd like to see this as an IETF-approved part of HTTP. Reviving
> Nottingham's draft would solve a big problem for us. In order for
> authors of documents on the Web to tell agents that there is a transform
> to get data out of their data, they need a link to the transform and the
> ability for the agent to tell that link is actually not just an ordinary
> link, but the link of a GRDDL transform. This is absolutely needed for
> the cases where the document owner may want to authorize to the
> transformation, but may not want to add the information to the header of
> *every* document in the collection or have access to the document. A
> use-case given by Ian Davis of Talis has been written in more detail [2].

I totally agree that it would be good to make progress, but I'm not sure 
it's required for your work to proceed.

After all, the Link header *is* defined by RFC2068, so if you stick to 
that definition and do stick to a simple link relation name, I wouldn't 
expect any problems.

Q: do you really need "Profile"?

> ...

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 22:09:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT