W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > October 2007

assuming HTTP Link will get ratified?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:19 -0500
To: public-powderwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1191601879.16975.747.camel@pav>

I read...

"This section makes two key assumptions that, at present, may be regarded as unsafe.

That the HTTP Link header, defined in RFC 2616 and still in the registry but dropped 
from later RFCs, will be reinstated through the new draft."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-powder-dr-20070925/#assoc

You're clearly aware of the current draft of HTTP, since you link
directly to it...
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.html

That draft has no Link header and no open issue regarding the link header.
As far as I can tell, there is no reason to believe that spec will include
the Link header.

Something like mnot's draft seems more likely...
http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-00.txt

If you need the Link header ratified, you should put energy into making
that happen: convince implementors to implement it, make noise about
implementors that have implemented it, get somebody to re-issue
that draft in the IETF, etc.

See also...
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/issues#issue-http-header-links


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 16:30:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:11 GMT