- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:56:35 +0100
- 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