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

Re: [draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06] rev

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:21:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4A8E4AFD.1080605@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 25/07/2009, at 12:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> If we can consider the media attribute to be an link-extension, why 
>> can we not do the same for rev?
> As per recent discussion, done; see
> http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07-from-6.diff.html 
> ...

I still think this is the wrong approach.

"rev" has been defined in RFC2068. We can explain why relying on it is a 
bad idea, and suggest alternatives.

But excluding it from the base definition essentially allows re-defining 
it as extension meaning something else, and that would be bad if a 
recipient implements RFC2068.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 07:22:23 UTC

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