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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:11:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4934EDAE.6040506@gmx.de>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> ...
>> 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.
> ...

Well, right now there's no extension point; the target does not allow 
templating, and a parameter can't override it (recipients will ignore 
extension parameters they don't understand).

One potential solution would be to state that if a link target that is 
not a syntactically valid URI-reference is reserved for future 
extensions (so clients ignore it for now).

Another one would be to use a different header, such as Link-Template, 
defined in version 00 of the draft 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-00#section-5>).

Personally, I'd like to see this move ahead without any dependency on 
URI templates.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 08:12:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:57 GMT