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: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:06:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcM5TPantd7CLxjYGxRbMxcbrZJJu36xMB5EwT_qO8qhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Give me a viable, non theoretical use case where the other target
attributes and extension parameters would make a difference and I'll
reconsider that constraint.
On Nov 5, 2013 5:02 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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 01:07:10 UTC

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