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: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:50:59 -0700
Message-Id: <A49F5CA3-0062-4590-BEC0-183A7AF5D630@gbiv.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>

On Mar 11, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> No, I meant the link header...:
>> Link: <http://example.com/grddl.xslt>;
>>   rel="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view/transform"
> Yep, that would be another way to do it, but only *if* rel allows  
> URIs.
> I thought it did not. Am I wrong?

It does not currently allow URIs.  The link relationship space is  
to be small, universal, and standardized (just like HTTP methods).   
That is
why it is better not to allow an infinite number of relation types,  
but instead
define a few types that allows an infinite number of relations to be  
However, RDF pretty much screwed us all on that one, so the  
reasonable next
step is to allow URIs and have all flat names be relative to the same
link relationship registry as Atom.

Note, however, that the following performs the same job as Profile  
new protocol and without excessive bytes on the wire:

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

Yes, there is some tiny possibility that two different profiles will
use the same relationship name for entirely different purposes.
I don't care.  If they can't be distinguished by context, then they
shouldn't be used together.  Profiles are a crutch.

BTW, it is my opinion that both Link and PATCH should be restored to
the main HTTP specs.  HTTP is incomplete without them.

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 17:51:18 UTC

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