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 01:35:58 -0700
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723412797FC8FE@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>

> 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).

This looks like the more promising option.

> 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>).

The problem with that is the lack of equal treatment this whole draft is trying to establish for Link header/element. This will also stand in the way of the new suggestion to simplify /site-meta to switch to a simple text document with Link header records (with the "Link: " stripped).

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

I agree. There is urgent need in getting this spec finalized and the templates discussion is far from conclusion. But there are enough compelling reasons to bake into this spec support for such future extensions. I think the suggestion to ignore non-compliant URIs is the best option, and I would prefer to see it indicated in the ABNF, but if not, a simple clarification would suffice.

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 08:36:40 UTC

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