W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: FYI: LCI -02

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:33:47 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mike Kelly <mike@stateless.co>
Message-Id: <D56AA605-F799-407A-AB0C-F97D080A1DEA@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 04/06/2012, at 6:08 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-06-01 03:08, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> We've published an -02 draft of LCI:
>>   <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-02>
>> 
>> and intend to request publication as an Individual Submission Informational RFC soon (the link relations have just been submitted for review). Feedback still welcome (http list is best, I think).
> 
> Here's another question: the proposal defines both a cache directive and link relations. Have you considered putting all the link-related information into a cache directive as well? (Not saying it should be the case but wondering whether that would keep things together that belong together).


Yes. However, some use cases are to strip the link on the way out, and it's easier to strip all Link headers than to parse and selectively change Cache-Control headers. I know that theoretically other Link headers could be emitted, but with current software, this is the easier path.

Additionally, I didn't want to rely on the quality of Cache-Control parsers already out there.

Also, we didn't want to re-invent the Link header and all of its associated machinery (e.g., relative vs. absolute, scoping, etc.).

Finally, it's conceivable that some folks might want to use the relations for other purposes.

After all, they may be separate headers, but they'll be in the same message. 

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 10:35:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 June 2012 10:35:58 GMT