W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > March 2008

RE: HTTP Link Use cases

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:15:44 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4D16EB3@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "Public MWBP" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi Phil

Thanks for the gentle reminder of the need for action. ISSUE-238 and
ACTION-703 both have a direct relevance to this, and both are
essentially down to me to chase. I hadn't forgotten our call, or either
of these actions, it's just that I have been running around like a
headless chicken since the Seoul F2F and have only just managed to get
my head back above water (if that is not too grotesque a mixed
metaphor).

There will definitely be input from BP on this, but there are definitely
only 24 hours in each day.

Jo

---
Jo Rabin
mTLD (http://dotmobi.mobi)

mTLD Top Level Domain Limited is a private limited company incorporated
and registered in the Republic of Ireland with registered number 398040
and registered office at Arthur Cox Building, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin
2.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: 17 March 2008 09:53
> To: Public MWBP
> Subject: HTTP Link Use cases
> 
> 
> Jo and I discussed this on the phone the other day so this note is
> 
> a) to remind him of that conversation;
> b) alert other members of the group to the issue.
> 
> We have discussed the potential usefulness of the HTTP Link Header in
> the mobile space in past meetings (I recall doing so most recently at
> TPAC last year). The issue continues to surface and resurface on the
> IETF/W3C HTTP group and has lead to some very recent and extensive
> discussion. Happy Halpin kicked things off this time [1] and this lead
> to mark Nottingham breathing new life into his draft [2]. I chimed in
> with the POWDER use case [3]. In between these are messages from the
> likes of Roy Fielding and Julian Reschke.
> 
> The bulk of the discussion centred on the need for/best approach to
> providing an HTTP Profile header, i.e. an extensible and unambiguous
way
> to extend relationship types. It's not as easy as it sounds...
> 
> If the MWBP in general, and the CTTF in particular, wishes to support
> the reinstatement of HTTP Link and comment on the wider discussion.
NOW
> is the time when such an input can have most effect.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Phil.
> 
> 
> [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JanMar/0444.html
> [2]
http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt
> [3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JanMar/0499.html
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 11:16:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 March 2008 11:16:36 GMT