W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:28:03 +0200
Message-ID: <49E875D3.7010206@gmx.de>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Why can an XML namespace be an information resource
> 
> Because Webarch explicitly says so.

I see.

However, allowing an XML namespace to be an Information Resource, but 
disallowing that for a RDF property still looks very arbitrary to me.

>> and a link relation can not?
> 
> Well it can't be if you also want to use it as an RDF property. The
> @xmlns use of a URI is different from the use of a URI when you put it
> in your browser or when you use it in RDF. Similarly, yes, the Link
> header specification could do something like what @xmlns is doing.
> 
> But in that case, it won't be compatible with RDF.
> 
> (You'd have to choose, one or the other.)

Not convinced yet.

Where exactly is the incompatibility?

>> I'd rather have this specification not go near this whole discussion
> 
> That'd be fine by me, and I'd be happy with reversed domain names
> which are anyway incompatible with RDF. But you raised RDF
> compatibility in response, and I'm just pointing out that if this is
> to be so then such compatibility should be done carefully and
> thoroughly.
> 
> There may be other ways to avoid the hornets' nests, of course. But
> the specification should at least be clear about whatever it allows.
> 
>> Can you cite a document that states that an RDF property is not an
>> Information Resource?
> 
> Sure: Webarch, ยง 2.2.

Section 2.2 does not mention RDF at all. Could you please be more specific?

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 12:28:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT