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

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ...
> 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.
> ...

+1.

As IANA currently maintains this as "Atom Link Relations", would we need 
to update that registry somehow?

> Note, however, that the following performs the same job as Profile without
> 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.

I like that idea; however I'm not totally sure that this is within our 
charter...

BR, Julian