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 10:50:59 +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>
Message-ID: <20090831095059.GC21676@tumbolia.org>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:46:31AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Noah Slater wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:29:40AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> What I wanted to say is that the text in the registry *can* be read to
>>> support only relations to *direct* parents.
>> I feel a bit stupid, but I'm not sure what "direct" means here. Or at least, my
>> only interpretation of it seems contradictory to the idea that one could
>> interpret the registration to require it.
>> Could you provide a few examples?
> "direct parent" as in "parent", as opposed to "grandparent" or further
> ancestors.

Ah, okay.

The only way that would work is if you were considering a document that existed
in multiple hierarchies, and you took the subject of "a" to be any direct parent
within that collection of hierarchies, instead of any parent in any hierarchy.

This an incorrect interpretation of the my registration.

Is it important that we clarify this? For any person that argues for that
interpretation, would it not suffice to argue out that the language is loose
enough that there is no reasonable way to claim one interpretation to the
exclusion of another. Maybe even linking to this email.

What do you think we should do?


Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 09:51:42 UTC

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