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

Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ?

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:21:28 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101003172128.GF3711@1wt.eu>
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 07:06:22PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >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?

I don't know. Maybe we can deduce it from the presence of the Link
headers. But when reading the Link header spec below :

I did not get the impression that the header is supposed to cause UAs
to request specific user action. But maybe we could imagine that some
specific values of the header are automatically detected by UAs and
make them ask the user for chosing the most suitable version. I'm not
certain this practice is good for the long term (eg: should browser
present a popup when encountering unknown types). Probably that Mark
has some insights on the best way to use the header.

> >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>).

So if I understand it correctly, we refer to the types enumerated in
RFC4287 ? Then we have 5 available types : "alternate", "related", "self",
"enclosure", and "via". I thought that "alternate" would fit but it's
indicated that no more than one link may be present, which limits the

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 17:22:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC