Re: In support of draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the input and keeping us in the loop on the POWDER WG and  
plans for DRs and PICS, that's good to know.

FYI, the link-header draft is still in editing phase, and Mark has not  
requested publication yet -- so the IESG has not yet been officially  
called on to take any action on this document, let alone approve as an  
RFC.  Still, early input can be useful so I don't intend this  
information to deter such input.

You might also provide this input to the HTTP WG, because getting WG  
consensus around such a document is always better for getting it  
approved as a standards track RFC, implemented and deployed.  I tend  
to agree that the Link header work will be quite useful for HTTP  
extensions and connections to non-HTTP functionality as well, which  
makes it all the more important to get this done right and quickly.

Regards,
Lisa


On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Phil Archer wrote:

> Dear IESG members,
>
> I'm writing on behalf of the POWDER Working Group at W3C [1] to  
> support the draft submitted by Mark Nottingham, dated 14 March 2008  
> [2]. The WG would like to see this become an RFC.
>
> The use case we have for the HTTP Link header is set out in an e- 
> mail sent to the W3C TAG mailing list [3] which quotes from and  
> builds directly on our use cases document [4]. In essence, the  
> Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) is designed to  
> facilitate greater personalisation of Internet content through the  
> provision of metadata that can be created separately from the  
> multiple resources it describes and that can be authenticated.
>
> A typical use case would be whether or not to include links to other  
> resources on a page delivered to a mobile device, whether to  
> recommend certain resources for school study and so on. In each  
> case, the ability to find the metadata without having to parse the  
> relevant resource offers a substantial optimisation in processing.
>
> HTTP Link, as set our by Mark Nottingham, achieves this. A HEAD  
> request to a given resource would be sufficient to identify the  
> location of any Description Resources that may be available.  
> Moreover, for some resource types, it offers the only practical way  
> to provide the link to the Description Resource.
>
> The POWDER WG intends to submit a proposal for at least one  
> relationship type to be used in HTTP Link Headers.
>
> The relevant section of our Recommendation Track documentation is at  
> [5].
>
> Incidentally, if we are successful in reaching full Recommendation  
> status, it is likely that PICS [6] will be withdrawn.  It would be  
> appropriate in that case to withdraw the PICS HTTP Header too.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Phil Archer
> POWDER WG Chair.
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0114.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-use-cases/
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20080317/#assoc
> [6] http://www.w3.org/PICS/
>
>
> -- 
> Phil Archer
> Chief Technical Officer,
> Family Online Safety Institute
> w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
>
>
>