W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

GRDDL and IETF: Need "HTTP Header Linking"

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:32:14 -0500
Message-ID: <45CA536E.30603@ibiblio.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

(cc'ing Graham Klyne and Mark Nottingham)
GRDDL [1], a W3C Rec-track spec, now has a dependency on the success of
Mark Nottingham's IETF draft renewal of the "link" header and possibly
the "profile" header as given in his "HTTP Header Linking" IETF draft. [2]

My goal is not have waiting for the IETF process prevent GRDDL from
going into CR stage when our current charter [3], which states that we
go to CR the first quarter of 2007. I am not as familiar with IETF
process as W3C Process, but is this possible?

If not, what are the current issues preventing [2] from going through
IETF process to become a RFC? Is help needed? Ian Davis, a member of the
W3C GRDDL WG, seems interested in helping [4].

GRDDL does *not* define a new header per se, but simply a using the
currently deprecated header name "link" that Mark [2] is drafting for
re-inclusion, and giving it a new field value, since "link-param = ( (
"rel" "=" relationship )" and "Relationship values are case-insensitive
and MAY be extended within the constraints of the sgml-name syntax." The
exact text we want to use is here [6].

  Note that there is not a field value repository for HTTP, for while
there appears  appears to be a relatively straightforward IETF process
for headers [5], so this should not be a problem for [2].

"Neither repository tracks the syntax, semantics or type of
field-values. Only the field-names, applicable protocols and status are
registered; all other details are specified in the defining document are
referenced by repository entries."

Since we are depending the "link" header name (given in part 2 of Ian's
e-mail [4] to the WG is acceped at our next telecon and also the
"profile" header name [6],  all we really need is for Mark's draft [2]
to become RFC. Ian claimed that the "link" header was dropped from RFC
2616 and now needs to be put back in RFC 2068 [4,7]

 Can we reasonably get this by Q1 2007?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/
[2] http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-00.txt
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/grddl-charter.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jan/0087.html
[5] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#ref-24
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0020.html
[7] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt


If you tell me the process for getting a HTTP Profile header registered,
Ill
Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 23:07 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>   
>> On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
>>     
>>> We've been working hard in the GRDDL WG, but we're still falling a bit 
>>> behind our rather ambitious schedule.
>>>       
>
> We closed the last open issue today. Yay!
> http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html
>
> Meanwhile, we picked up a dependency on
> getting an HTTP Profile header registered.
> That probably means we're going to hang out
> in CR for a while, rather than going straight
> to PR. Hmm.
>
>
>   


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 22:32:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT