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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:29:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9B89F4.9090300@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Noah Slater wrote:
>>> ...
>>> And the registration says:
>>>
>>>   A URI that refers to a parent document in a hierarchy of documents.
>>>
>>> I think the "a" in that sentence allows you to choose any.
>>> ...
>> But that doesn't *necessarily* mean they can be at different distances
>> in the hierarchy (there are use cases where a resource is part of
>> multiple hierarchies, thus would have multiple "direct" parents).
> 
> The registration does not require any cross-relationship between uses of the
> relation for a single resource. The parent, depth, and hierarchy of one
> relationship could be totally disjoint to another.

I think I agree with that.

What I wanted to say is that the text in the registry *can* be read to 
support only relations to *direct* parents.

Looking at 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-03#section-2.3>, 
I'm pretty sure that that draft restricts "up" to direct parents, so it 
appears we need to invest some work here (maybe head over to the Atom 
mailing list???)

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 08:30:24 GMT

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