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

Re: FW: HTTP Header Use Case

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:40:09 +0000
Message-ID: <45CC4179.5070307@hpl.hp.com>
To: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-grddl-wg@w3.org, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>

Agreed.

I was unaware of that draft. It adds the clarity that I was after.

A further issue from that draft is:

The
    Link field is semantically equivalent to the <LINK> element in HTML.

and

    The Profile field is semantically equivalent to the profile attribute
    of the HEAD element in HTML [W3C.REC-html401-19991224].

If the code were to treat the Profile field identically to that in the 
HEAD, then I would dereference profiles other than the GRDDL one, to see 
whether they had a profileTransformation. Also, a LINK header, could be 
used with a profile attribute inside the document, and vice-versa.

I was thinking, and have currently implemented, that the HTTP header 
mechanism and the mechanisms triggered by document content were 
independent and do not interact.

I hope the final document will clarify. I will see if I can produce 
tests on the points above. (Depends a bit - I have to interact with a 
system admin at sourceforge)

Jeremy


Ian Davis wrote:
> On 08/02/2007 11:08, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>>
>> I thought a bit about the spec for this (the earlier e-mail in the 
>> thread) and felt it could be improved.
>> It was a little unclear what I need to be looking for in the values.
>>
>> Suggestions:
>> 1) drop the "<" and ">" quoting the URIs; not used elsewhere in HTTP 
>> Headers (I think)
>> 2) Use transformation as a token, rather than "transformation" a 
>> quoted string, as the value of rel.
>> 3) provide grammar, extensibility, etc for these headers e.g.
>>
> My preference is to retain compatibility with the header as specified in 
> RFC2068 and continued in draft-nottingham-http-link-header-00
> 
> Ian
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 09:40:58 GMT

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