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: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:31:49 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BB227508-7411-469F-8B65-7B0B22E91EC3@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

It's proving difficult to define rev in a meaningful way that's  
specific to the Link header without accommodating it in section 4 (or  
alternatively, directly in the registry, although I'm not terribly  
fond of going in that direction), especially since there are  
apparently conflicting uses of it in HTML2 and HTML4.

My inclination is to accommodate it syntactically as a link-extension  
and note the problem in the Using Link in HTML4 appendix, but not to  
try to define its semantics. Is this what you had in mind? Otherwise,  
could you (or someone else) please provide some straw-man text to  
discuss?


On 10/12/2008, at 8:37 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> We should remove the mistaken usage of "outbound" and "inbound" and
> the definition of rev should be in section 4 (and deprecated because
> experience has shown that reversing semantics is less understandable
> by people than choosing inverse relation names).


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 05:32:34 GMT

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