W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06] rev

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:32:47 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EC024EE4-804D-447C-85ED-5E8B867324AD@mnot.net>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
OK, so in my current working draft I have rev in the syntax still, but  
with this statement:

> The "rev" parameter has also been used for this purpose historically  
> by some formats, and MAY be accommodated as a link-extension, but  
> its use is neither encouraged nor defined by this specification.

If that doesn't work for you, please propose text.



On 25/08/2009, at 6:19 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:43:26 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> I.e., define the semantics of rev in case it's received, but  
>>>> prohibit
>>>> sending it?
>>>
>>> Right, exactly.
>>
>> This works for me too, though I hope it does not mean browsers  
>> suddenly have to start supporting something browsers never really  
>> properly implemented in the first place. (I think "rev" fails the  
>> rough consensus and running code mantra, but I might be missing  
>> something here.)
>
> rev="Made" was, at one point, supported by browsers (esp. Lynx).
> I don't know if Lou carried that forward into Netscape et al.
>
> I don't have a problem with its deprecation.
>
> ....Roy
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:33:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:10 GMT