W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:44:57 +1100
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CF905E97-0BDC-47A5-8F7E-01B0136CE384@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
What's <ref> here? I still don't see where the decision is made... at worst, this makes it seem like consumers can make an arbitrary decision as to whether to process a link with an anchor.

This is where I am now:

  Links with the anchor parameter MUST be ignored by consuming implementations, unless their use is explicitly specified.




On 19/02/2010, at 8:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 19.02.2010 03:03, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> OLD:
>>   The anchor parameter MUST be ignored by consuming implementations, unless its use is specified by the application in use.
>> 
>> NEW:
>>   Links with the anchor parameter MUST be ignored by consuming implementations, unless its use is specified by the application and/or relation type in use.
>> 
>> works?
> 
> That's better, in that it clarifies that the anchor parameter never ever can be ignored.
> 
> However, it still delegates the decision to the "fuzzy" term "application" or the relation type registration (why would that be involved?).
> 
> How about:
> 
> "The presence of the anchor parameter affects the context IRI. Thus, consumers either MUST ignore all links that include the anchor parameter, or process it according to <ref>. In the latter case, the resulting context IRI can identify an entirely different resource, in which case consumers MAY choose to ignore the link."
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 26 February 2010 04:45:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:16 GMT