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

Re: assuming HTTP Link will get ratified?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:40:23 +1000
Message-Id: <8F75350B-E719-4AB6-B96B-44F6FDBA8643@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, public-powderwg@w3.org, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

The best way to get this moving is to get discussion going on the  
list; as a consensus emerges, other people will either have to offer  
up objections / alternatives, or get out of the way. What's stopping  
it now is inertia...


On 2007/10/16, at 8:10 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:52 +0100, Phil Archer wrote:
>> Other interested folk added to cc line.
>> Dan,
>> Sorry it's taken me a week to reply to this. I need to probe a little
>> deeper.
> Has it been a week already? Wow...
>> I wonder what evidence for implementation is required? Through Mod
>> headers, Apache allows you to set a Link header and Microsoft's  
>> IIS has
>> its own way of letting you do that too. Rightly or wrongly, I've been
>> advising people that this is the most efficient way of adding a  
>> link for
>> some time [1].
>> As an example of a widespread implementation, Perl's LWP module  
>> makes no
>> distinction between a link/rel defined in HTML or HTTP Headers.  
>> See, for
>> example, [2]. This is the ICRA label test result for an adult site  
>> that
>> has configured its servers to include the link as an HTTP response
>> header, processed using LWP.
>> As for demand, your link to the GRDDL shows that POWDER is not  
>> alone in
>> wanting this. Other documents discussing this are linked to from the
>> POWDER doc (from Mark Nottingham and Tim BL) [3].
>> Is that sufficient demand and implementation experience to either get
>> this added as an issue in the HTTP draft or for Mark's draft to be
>> resurrected?
> It looks like enough to me, but the only way to know for sure is to
> ask them.
>>  If not, I would be very grateful for more specific advice
>> on what else has to be done.
> I think putting Link on the HTTP WG issues list is more trouble
> than it's worth. There's an HTTP header registry, so the Link
> header can be ratified independent of all the other HTTP issues
> under investigation.
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html
> I suggest you ask Mark to re-issue his draft; include the background
> above when you do.
> He seems inclined to work on it...
> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
> Date: 15 October 2007 4:07:43 PM
> To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Link Header draft
> Archived-At:
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/56B4E43D-B4FA-4C13-A0A0-6807C3C76631@yahoo- 
> inc.com>
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 22:42:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:03 UTC