W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

RE: Feedback for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:47:28 -0700
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723412797FC8FD@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>

> > The '#' operator is not defined in the referenced ABNF provided (it
> is defined in the original spec).
> RFC 2616, Section 2.1.

Yep. You are right. Missed it.

> > ...
> >>    Each link-value conveys one target URI inside angle brackets
> ("<>").
> >>    If it is relative, it MUST be resolved as per [RFC3986].  Note
> that
> >>    because it is conveyed in a header, base URIs from content are
> not
> >>    applied to it.
> >
> > Just confirming that URI-Reference can be an empty string, i.e.:
> Link: <>; rel="something". It is needed for using links with URI-
> templates [1] where the link value is constructed using a template that
> does not fit in the URI-Reference space (using a link header
> extension).
> Sorry? If the URI-Reference is empty, then the target URI is the one of
> the context.
> If you want to introduce an extension point for URI templates, we'll
> need to specify it explicitly.

Where? In this spec? I don't think Link should directly deal with URI-templates (would save me a lot of work but still, not really the general-purpose use-case this spec seems to address). But if you don't think there is a simple way to extend link to support templates, we should discuss it now.

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 07:48:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:47 UTC