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 21:14:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA8D61C.6020508@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03.10.2010 19:21, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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 :
>    http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10.txt
> 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

Well, rel=stylesheet already "makes" UA do something.

> certain this practice is good for the long term (eg: should browser
> present a popup when encountering unknown types). Probably that Mark

No, the browser certainly should *not* display a popup for unknown types :-)

> 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
> usefulness.

No no, I just was pointing out that this is the new definition of the 

I would suggest that we either pick one of those listed in


... - "latest-version" might make sense, or define a new one.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 19:21:51 UTC

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