W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > April 2008

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

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:00:48 +0100
Message-ID: <480E19C0.9080606@icra.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: iesg@ietf.org, mnot@mnot.net, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Thanks for this, Lisa,

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I've engaged with that group and the TAG which is also looking at 
this. Actually, it's rather confusing to keep track of multiple threads 
on the same topic. There has been an *enormous* amount of discussion on 
the TAG list around some of the Web architecture points.

   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.

That's good to hear.

Thank you.


> 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/
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 17:01:35 UTC

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