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

Re: Feedback on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03, was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:47:05 +0100
Message-ID: <49364789.5060500@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>>> 5.  The Link Header Field
>>>       Link           = "Link" ":" #link-value
>>>       link-value     = "<" URI-Reference ">" *( ";" link-param ) )
>>>       link-param     = ( ( "rel" "=" relation-type )
>>>                      | ( "rev" "=" relation-type )
>>>                      | ( "type" "=" type-name )
>>>                      | ( "title" "=" quoted-string )
>>>                      | ( link-extension ) )
>>>       link-extension = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ]
>>>       relation-type  = URI-Reference |
>>>                      <"> URI-Reference *( SP URI-Reference) <">
>>
>> I note that we lost the "anchor" parameter defined in RFC 2068, 
>> Section 19.6.2.4, so we are not strictly speaking backwards-compatible...
> 
> Well, in the sense that it can be a link-extension, we are...
> ...

But only in that sense.

"anchor", as defined in RFC 2068:

  ...The anchor parameter MAY
  be used to indicate a source anchor other than the entire current
  resource, such as a fragment of this resource or a third resource.

essentially is a must-understand parameter; just like rel and rev. 
Ignoring it will lead to a different interpretation of the header.

Now this may be ok if nobody uses it, in which case we probably should 
point out somewhere that it was left out.

 > ...


BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 08:47:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:58 GMT