W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: up up up, was: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:23:12 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908310621300.26930@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > ...
> > The main advantage of rel="up up up" rather than rel="up3" is that for UAs
> > that only need to know that the link is an "up" and don't care about how far
> > "up" it goes, the keyword automatically works -- you don't have to do
> > rel="up up3". Also, it means that we don't have to register an infinite
> > number of keywords for all possible depths.
> > ...
> 
> (moving this particular discussion over to the HTML WG mailing list)
> 
> The main disadvantage is that a recipient that only looks for "up" and which
> tries to build a tree of resources, treating "up up up" as "up" will create a
> broken tree.
> 
> On the other hand, the advantage you are citing is only an advantage if a
> given resource only contains "up up up", but not also "up up" and "up". What
> you be the point of that?

A UA that treats any number of "up"s as the same would not interpret "up" 
as "up1", but as meaning that the referenced document was some higher- 
level document in the hierarchy.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 06:21:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC