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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:51:25 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <561F24A0-FA5D-4438-B3DC-EAAB0CBC8358@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

On 21/08/2009, at 6:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Mark Nottingham 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
> Really? Pointer?

There was a long discussion about this; as I remember it, different  
versions of HTML have different wordings of what rev is, leading  
people to wildly varying understandings of what it means. I can dig up  
references if you like, but it was discussed quite extensively.

>> 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.
> Minimally we should ensure that it's not used as a name for future  
> extension parameters if that use would conflict with the text in RFC  
> 2068.

>> 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).
> If these are the choices, I'd definitively prefer the latter

Anne? Ian? IIRC both of your requested the removal of "rev"; how do  
you feel about leaving it in the grammar but strengthening the text to  
clarify that implementations are not required to interpret / use it?


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 01:52:07 UTC

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