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 17:56:35 +0100
Message-ID: <527A74C3.3010506@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-11-06 17:18, James M Snell wrote:
> ...
>>> Regarding the main question about whether or not to include target
>>> attributes in the uniqueness constraint, the question becomes: which
>>> target attributes should be considered?
>>
>>
>> All of them?
>>
>
> "All of them" becomes impractical for the reasons I've already given,
> particularly without clearly defined, viable, non-theoretical use
> cases.

I don't understand how "all of them" can be impractical when "two of 
them" works.

Furthermore, how does the (current) lack of a use case affect the 
practicability?

> That said, here's a compromise: Let's expand the uniqueness constraint
> to include anchor, hreflang and type. Doing so ought to cover the vast
> overwhelming majority of the possibly viable use cases. I can also say
> that the server MUST consider the remaining target attributes to be
> significant in that, *if* the server chooses to surface those links in
> some representable manner, the most recently received values for those
> MUST be included. Is that better?

I don't think it resolves the issue...

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 16:57:04 UTC

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