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

Re: link relationship registration

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:52:59 +0100
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Atom Syntax" <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ulx0ileu64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:29:02 +0100, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> On 10/12/2008, at 9:04 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> Then again, it seems the HTTP Link you define is not very much in line  
>> with HTML5 <link>, <a>, <area> anyway.
>
> Can you give a little more detail?

Skimming through the drafts for a few minutes I find at least these:

In HTML5 the tokens are not URIs and are not really URI-references either  
because they have to be case-insensitively matched (the HTML5  
specification is currently wrong on this).  
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/stylesheet and stylesheet are  
therefore not equal either.)

In HTML5 people can simply provisionally register a new token by putting  
it on a wiki page. The token does not have to be a URI. (Though it could  
be a string that is also a URI.)

In HTML5 there is no rev "link-param" because (non-academic) studies have  
shown that people do not really know how to use it.

In HTML5 media, hreflang, and sizes (just for <link>) also influence the  
relationship. Your draft does not have these "link-param"s.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 10:53:46 GMT

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