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: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:29:04 +0100
Message-ID: <49366D80.9050805@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
> I think the issue here is more around trust than just semantics; i.e., 
> you need to know the source of the statement to evaulate it. The thing 
> is, that's really defined by the context of use; i.e., if you're working 
> from within some wonderful semantic framework, you might be able to 
> trust inbound links.
> 
> So, if this were defined by the application, would you be more happy? 
> The effect on *this* spec, I think, would be that the link *header* 
> section would say that rev links aren't necessarily authoritative.
> 
> Make sense?s
> ...

Not sure. What would that achieve?

Why would you trust

   rel=author

more then

   rev=made

?

In general, the level of trust for a relation exposed with a resource 
probably depends *both* on the resource and the link relation being 
used, not the fact whether it's exposed as "rel" or "rev".

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 11:29:51 GMT

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