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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 02:02:38 +0100
Message-ID: <5279952E.5040402@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-10-29 06:59, James M Snell wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2013 10:48 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net
> <mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > On 24/09/2013, at 5:17 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com
> <mailto: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.
> ...

Not convinced.

Consider the various target attributes, or extension parameters. If they 
do not contribute to the uniqueness constraint, you *are* constraining 
the linking model.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 01:03:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC