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: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:59:17 +0100
Message-ID: <47D67415.8090504@gmx.de>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Harry Halpin wrote:
>> Hm.
>>
>> So as far as I understand you have two sorts of GRDDL transforms, a
>> "licensed" one, and another one.
>>
>> Why don't you just define two separate link relations then, avoiding
>> the Profile stuff?
> The links are to the GRDDL transform URIs themselves. And a non-licensed
> GRDDL transformation is not technically a GRDDL transformation. That's
> why we use Profile in our definition.

Understood. But wouldn't two different link relations have the same 
semantics?

>> So, let's rephrase this: if a link relation could be a URI (or IRI),
>> would we need Profile?
> Explain precisely how this would work. I'm not sure what document I
> should be looking at to explain "link relations" to me. If there's
> another header that can do it, that might work.

No, I meant the link header...:

Link: <http://example.com/grddl.xslt>;
   rel="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view/transform"

> I can see how there might be conflict if HTML drops Profile and HTTP
> re-instates it. It would be better for it to be either re-instated
> uniformly or not. But I think Profile does have a pretty good URI-based
> extensibility case going for it.

Yes, I totally agree that URI based extensibility is good. I'm just not 
sure it's good enough with Profile, given the fact it doesn't solve the 
disambiguation problem.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 11:59:42 GMT

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