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 08:33:08 -0700
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003f01c88456$60976e90$4001a8c0@T60>

Harry Halpin wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:
> > URI-based extensibility for HTTP is RFC 2774
> > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt):
> >
> > 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
> >
> That's one experimental way to do it, but again - registering 
> custom link headers in general I think are a *still 
> centralized* solution in comparison with a single Link header 
> with extensibility built in. I do not want to register a 
> custom link header every time I want to have an application 
> use a link header in a way that needs URI extensibility to 
> determine its type.
> 
> If I use "Opt" do I have to register my link header names, or 
> is it a free-for-all?

The point of the RFC 2774 mechanism is to allow the use of unregistered
headers without worrying about naming conflicts. It works just like XML
namespaces:

"http://example.org/foo"; ns=00 <=> xmlns:x00='http://example.org/foo'

"http://example.com"; ns=01 <=> xmlns:x01='http://example.com'

- Brian
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 15:33:18 GMT

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