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

Re: [draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06] 4.1 Registered Relation Types

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:41:15 +1000
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8FD7C49D-E7AE-4ED3-A9B6-3141E5C2891A@mnot.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

On 24/07/2009, at 11:55 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> I think this section should not talk about what implementations are  
> allowed to do internally. The concern of the specification should be  
> what goes in and what goes out. Therefore I think the entire last  
> paragraph should be dropped. We should not give the impression that http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/stylesheet 
>  will _ever_ work.

I was sorely tempted to do this a little while ago. Unless someone  
objects strongly, I'm going to drop that text (currently a separate  

> Also, can we require that the canonical registration form is  
> lowercase?

That's probably sensible. I'll modify the BNF and prose.

Additionally, any objections to requiring sgml-name (probably needs a  
new name, now that it's going to be all lower) for registered?  
Currently it's SHOULD.


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 06:41:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC