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

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

From: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:52:18 +0200
Message-ID: <21606dcf0908210052m63cf5180tcf1b4b115f66a7cf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I know where you're coming from.
>
> However, rev's semantics are *extremely* muddy and effectively
> format-specific; I think we're already at the point where it is re-defined
> every time it's used. And, defining it syntactically in Link without
> defining its semantics doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
>
> Thus, it seems to me that the options are to either take it out of the
> syntax completely, or leave it in the syntax for the sole purpose of
> deprecating it (since we can't really define crisp semantics for it).
>

Perhaps a reference to RFC2068 would suffice along with a brief explanation
as to why it's removed (poorly defined, rarely used and/or often abused)?
Not that I necessarily have a problem with your earlier wording, nor do I
foresee interop problems arising.

Sam
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 07:52:58 GMT

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