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: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:06:59 -0700
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003801c88452$b9415370$4001a8c0@T60>

Harry Halpin wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:
> > Why don't you just create a new HTTP header and register it?
> > The effort to register a new HTTP header would be the same
> > as the effort to register a new link relation for the
> > "Link:" header. Plus, you wouldn't have to wait for "Link:"
> > to become standardized.

> Link+rel with URIs Headers and Link+Profile Headers are a 
> decentralized solution to this problem (i.e. would not
> require a new link relation to be standardized at all,
> and in the future). We'd rather have one good decentralized
> way of using the Link header be part of HTTP than have to
> register a new HTTP header for every technology :)
> Perhaps that is just my preference for URI-based 
> extensibility and decentralization. However, I do think it 
> makes more sense long-term.

URI-based extensibility for HTTP is RFC 2774

Opt: "http://example.org/foo"; ns=00
00-My-Custom-Link-Header: http://example.org/bar
00-Another-Custom-Link-Header: http://example.org/baz
Opt: "http://example.com"; ns=01
01-My-Custom-Link-Header: http://example.com/something
01-Yet-Another-Header: http://example.com/something

The RFC 2774 mechanism isn't restricted to hyperlinks, either.

Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 15:07:12 UTC

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