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

Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:06:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA8B80E.3040403@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03.10.2010 18:58, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:55:05AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>> Content-status: deprecated
>> Link:<haproxy-1.4.9.tar.gz>; rel=newest-version
>
> Yes, probably something like this. It would make a good use of
> the Link header. And doing it this way is a good idea because
> it even allows multiple Link headers in case other branches may
> be suggested. For instance :
>
> Link:<haproxy-1.4.8.1.tar.gz>; rel=fixed-version; title="Fixes critical bug"
> Link:<haproxy-1.4.9.tar.gz>; rel=updated-version; title="Latest in same branch"
> Link:<haproxy-2.0.2.tar.gz>; rel=newest-version; title="Latest in latest branch"
>
> In case nobody would object, how could we move on ? Doing so involves a
> new header ("content-status"), so that should probably require proper

Do we really need Content-Status?

> registration. Also, I've not seen any registry for all relation-types,
> so we might need to define a few. Also, does a draft need to be written
> to advance ?

The Link Relations registry is defined in RFC5988-to-be 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-nottingham-http-link-header>).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 17:06:59 GMT

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