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: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:20:42 +0100
Message-ID: <47D7CA9A.105@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

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
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 12:21:09 GMT

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