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: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:20:31 -0700
To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343784D57E40@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Johnston [mailto:samj@samj.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:32 AM

> For example, I was looking for a relation to describe the "most recent
> version" of a resource (as distinct from a specific version in a VCS).
> I'd have used "current" were it not for its definition in RFC 5005 as
> "a feed document containing the most recent entries in the feed" (for
> which 'recent' would have been a better term IMO). Now I need to either
> try to shift the existing definition or find another like 'latest' -
> without regard to the registry we'd have ended up with two conflicting
> definitions.

This should not be a problem with the proposed registry. Since it will require more generic definitions that focus on the semantic meaning of the relation type rather than the specifics of the implementations using it, it will allow a consistent meaning with implementation details left to each protocol where it is used. It should also put more review on defining general purpose (short name) relation types when protocols are free to define URI based extension types.

EHL
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 23:21:05 GMT

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