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

Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:02:36 +1000
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <E03962B7-3AFE-4B4E-A8B5-4096B650EF45@mnot.net>
To: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
Hi Noah,

Sorry, that slipped through the cracks.

lang doesn't make any sense in this context; in HTML it applies to the  
link text, but there is none here.

Regarding hreflang - looking through the history, it's been discussed  
in a fairly positive light a few times, but never made it in. I think  
it does make some sense, since it's both in Atom and HTML. I'm a bit  
concerned about what the appropriate reference is for the value space;  
ATM I'm thinking BCP47 directly, rather than to a specific RFC, to  
allow it to evolve*.

Anyone see an issue with adding hreflang with a value space of BCP47?

Cheers,

* Often, a reference to an RFC is preferable, so that software can be  
reliably written to a specific set of identifiers. My initial feeling  
is that here that's not appropriate to do that, because language tags  
are labels, not something that you're going to hardcode into  
infrastructure software. Feedback appreciated, especially from the  
i18n community.



On 24/07/2009, at 7:08 AM, Noah Slater wrote:

> Hey Mark,
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:32:18PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I'm tracking proposed changes to -06 as a result of Last Call at:
>>  http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
>
> I'm not sure how this process works, so please just say so if I'm  
> getting the
> wrong end of the stick. I've sent a number of emails to the list  
> about adding
> two language related link parameters.
>
> My original email was:
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0196.html
>
> My next email was:
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0100.html
>
> And I added some clarification here:
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0112.html
>
> I'm worried that your most recent email means that my suggestions  
> wont make it
> into the specification. If that's the case, I was hoping for some  
> comentary so
> that I understand why that isn't going to be possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- 
> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 01:03:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT