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: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:03:32 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090830180332.GB31784@tumbolia.org>
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 07:52:18PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> It works in some cases; I imagine it wants a mime type as well. See
> <http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/http/link/>.

Aha, thanks for the link.

A few weeks ago, some friends did a survey, which concluded:

  'so it only seems that it would be a "problem" if you had a browser which
  *only* requires some stylesheet which isn't CSS. and then the "problem"
  equates to the amount of latency and bandwidth incurred in downloading the
  CSS, which may be less than 1 KB / so link/@type is completely useless'

                                   - http://swhack.com/logs/2009-08-14#T10-21-41

And after correcting my typo, it works, so I wont be adding this.

>>   <link rel="up alternative" type="application/atom+xml" href="/index.atom">
>
> "up alternative"? I hope these are two different link relations?

Yes, they I would have used it like:

  <link rel="up" type="application/atom+xml" href="/">

  <link rel="up" hreflang="fr" href="/index.fr">

  <link rel="up alternative" type="application/docbook+xml" href="/index.dbk">

So it would form a simple combination of relationships.

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 18:04:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:09 GMT