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: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:28:57 -0700
To: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343784B2ACB3@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
All you have to do to fix this is clearly state that 'up' can be any parent, not just a direct parent. My issue is not with having a generic and flexible relation type, but one that is failing to clearly communicate what it is.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@tumbolia.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:25 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: Ian Hickson; HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking)
> to Proposed Standard
> 
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:09:41AM -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> > > This is arguably a good thing.
> >
> > Ambiguous is not a good thing when it comes to link relations. If the
> client
> > cannot figure out what the document author intended, things tend to
> break.
> 
> I think that depends heavily on the application of the technology. The
> Web is
> traditionally a very "loose" environment, where UAs have spent decades
> figuring
> out what authors have meant using reasonably good heuristics. So within
> that
> context, I think that a bit of built in ambiguity promotes flexibility.
> 
> Best,
> 
> --
> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:29:32 GMT

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