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

Re: Link Header draft

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:32:16 +0100
Message-ID: <4715D6A0.3090005@icra.org>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Thanks for the pointer Anne - we probably will do that. Even so, Profile 
has the advantage of anchoring a rel type in a namespace more strongly 
than a wiki so I'm not sure that one obviates the need for the other 
completely.

Phil.

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:03:38 +0200, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org> wrote:
>> In brief: the Protocol for Web Description Resources is about 
>> providing small amounts of metadata about a lot of resources for use 
>> cases ranging from trustmarks through child protection to licensing. 
>> Such descriptions are as applicable to things like images and movies 
>> as they are HTML documents - hence the need for an HTTP-based linking 
>> mechanism and the availability of something very much like HTML 
>> Profile so we can define what rel="powder" means. (As an aside, we'll 
>> be arguing for the retention of Profile which seems to be under threat 
>> at the moment in HTML 5 & XHTML 2 but that's a different matter).
> 
> Why not simply register "powder" as a rel-value? Using profile for that 
> only makes it more complicated for authors and processing software.
> 
> (The WHATWG has put up a wiki page where you can register a rel value 
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions as experiment.)
> 
> 
> --Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 09:32:37 GMT

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