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

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

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:39:49 -0500 (EST)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0812090736010.13311@ubzre.j3.bet>

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> Hi Roy,
>
> That's an extraordinarily subtle distinction (and I still haven't thought 
> through its impact if we act upon it).
>
> Is your preference still to keep rev out of the spec?
>
> I only hear Julian making an argument to keep rev, and it doesn't seem like 
> an urgent one.

My understanding of rev is also that it reverse the relationship type, not 
the link, or the authority doing the claim. If we get rid of rev, people 
will have to define the two ways (like "bigger" _and_ "smaller", instead 
of just "bigger"). Not really a big issue.
So if you think it clarifies things, then drop rev.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 12:40:02 GMT

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