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: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:13:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdJs0DxTwEX65wt5UjF3=KV+eb6jKF0wpBY5cd16rJ_5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2013-11-06 17:18, James M Snell wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> "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?
>

Not intending to be rude, but I've already answered this... it has to
do with the amount of a priori knowledge a client needs to unlink or
update a single link relationship.

>
>> 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...
>

Is it at least a step in the right direction?

- James

>> ...
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 17:14:22 UTC

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