W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:03:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbdfg_23MdvOk0iK74=7Vvq+wtHCPK7c0QhVYSxnSEF+wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Good idea :) will do.
On Oct 28, 2013 11:01 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 29/10/2013, at 4:59 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 28, 2013 10:48 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 24/09/2013, at 5:17 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just a general FYI... I have submitted iteration -04 of the
> > > > LINK/UNLINK draft with a few minor editorial fixes... and, I have
> > > > formally requested Last Call status as an Independent Submission on
> > > > the Standards Track.
> > > >
> > > >  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-link-method-04
> > >
> > > In Section 2 of -05:
> > >
> > > "For any pair of resources, exactly one relationship of any given type
> can exist."
> > >
> > > That's a new and apparently backwards-incompatible change to the model
> of linking on the Web... e.g., consider "stylesheet".
> > >
> >
> > No, read it again, as a uniqueness constraint on the tuple (resource,
> link relation, resource). That's not new or novel.
>
> Right. Thanks :)
>
> > > Also, can these methods be made conditional?
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Of course.
>
> Mention it in the text, then; it's not automatic. Examples would be good
> too.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 06:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC