- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:06:48 +1100
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 18/03/2008, at 8:38 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> If there are a few nodding heads here > > Nod, in essence. Some nits and questions: > > Maybe I missed it, but please mention that <URI-reference> > is specified in STD 66. Some folks confuse URIs with IRIs, > and then get it completely wrong. This confusion could be > bad enough for a security consideration. Ack. > You mention "Made", but you don't list it in the registry. > IMO it should be "made", and you should mention that such > relative URIs are supposed to be case-insensitive. Maybe > the IANA Webmaster will be annoyed by this idea, and this > needs work (?) Will take a look. > Maybe add "updates 2626" (?) to get rid of it for 2616bis > Maybe deprecate "rev" (?) as proposed by the HTML5 cabale Yeah, been thinking about that. What do others think? Would anyone shed a tear if we didn't support rev? This would effectively make it a HTML(<5)-specific link-extension. > The XLink stuff muddies the water, please remove it. *shrug* I thought it might come up, but AFAICT XLink *is* dead. > We need to find out where "first", "last", and "payment" > were defined. Has <http://www.w3.org/TR/relations.html> > a status that can be referenced in a RFC ? I registered the Atom 'first' and 'last'; I'll dig up the e-mail. I can chase the definition of 'payment', hopefully. One substantive question for reviewers: is the registration policy too open? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 01:07:26 UTC