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: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:32:49 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Al Brown <albertcbrown@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20090831073249.GG16892@tumbolia.org>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 09:04:40AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> For what it's worth, my thoughts were that this would represent a resource that
>> was a direct parent of the resource. And by direct parent, I mean a parent that
>> must necessarily be passed through if traversing the hierarchy. For the purpose
>> of this discussion, however, I'm not sure my original intentions matter.
> Well, you did register the link relation, right?

Well sure, but my experience lead me to believe that the situation I describe is
the most common one. I was also aware of the vague nature of the description,
fitting with the other relations, and a bonus for reasons I have described in a
previous email. What I meant is, a post-hoc explanation of my thought process is
hardly normative for the official registration. Hehe.

>>> If you don't want to register multiple 'up-n' relations, consider defining the
>>> relation type with an optional extension, such as:
>>> Link: <http://example.com>; rel="up"; level="2"
>> I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most hierarchical relationships
>> that people will want to express will be such that the level can be inferred
>> directly from the URI. More over, I fail to understand what kind of UA interface
>> would need or want this kind of detail.
> CMIS/AtomPub is an example where the hierarchy is not necessarily
> reflected in the URIs, and that's why people want to use the "up"
> relation.

Sure, seems like a reasonable, and not unexpected, use.

> Now that I realize that "up" does not refer to a specific hierarchy
> level this may need to change, though...

I'm not sure what this means.

Before I made my application to IANA, I did took the time to look around at what
seemed to be the status-quo. I was definitely swayed by HTML5 having chosen this
relationship name. And despite me not liking the use of "up up up" for depth, I
do not think this contradicts the existing IANA registration.


Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:33:30 UTC

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