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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:17:36 +1100
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net>, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Message-Id: <09F47B67-D611-4D2D-817D-F5938F7B7B72@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 06/12/2008, at 10:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>> If we disallow inbound links (i.e., take them out of the prose, but  
>> as Roy says, still allow them in the syntax, for compatibility),  
>> we'll avoid this confusion and also gain some consistency between  
>> the serialisations. The only apparent loss is that of inbound  
>> links, and if I had to characterise the discussion I've seen so  
>> far, it's that their proponents think that they'd be *nice* to  
>> have, but I don't see anybody lying down in the road to save  
>> inbound links; indeed, when we re-added them, it was based on one  
>> or two people saying as much, IIRC.
>> Have I missed something? Otherwise it looks like we're moving  
>> towards taking 'rev' out (but still allowing it as a link-extension  
>> syntactically). Note that we're still going to update to say that  
>> rel links are resource->resource.
>> ...
> So how would that work precisely?
> If "rev" is taken out, the presence of a "rel" parameter becomes  
> mandatory, right?
> In that case, "rev" can not be introduced as an extension anymore --  
> either headers using "rev" would need to *also* contain a "rel"  
> value to stay valid (breaking the intended semantics), or would need  
> to be invalid in that they do not contain the "rel" parameter.

... or rel would need to no longer be required. In 2068, neither rel  
nor rev was required...

> So it seems that "rev" can not be introduced as an *extension* at a  
> later point, it would be a major change of the specification.
> If "rev" is to be taken out, the spec should state that the  
> semantics of links without "rel" is undefined, and that future  
> specifications can change that.

Yes, I think that's roughly where we're at.

> That being said, I think the semantics of "rev" are clear enough; so  
> I would recommend keeping it but maybe to add language discouraging  
> its use for now.

Hmm. Defining it but discouraging its use?

To be clear -- I don't have strong feelings one way or another.  
However, I do think that rev is one of the more tentative parts of the  
spec as it sits.


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2008 11:18:18 UTC

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