W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05

From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:27:20 +0100
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090417122720.GA26949@tumbolia.org>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 09:48:38AM +0000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> § 4.2.
>
>    “Applications that don't merit a registered relation type may use an
>    extension relation type, which is a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely
>    identifies the relation type.”

On an unrelated tangent, this section caused me some initial confusion.

The single example given is:

   Note that link-values may convey multiple links between the same
   target and context IRIs; for example:

       Link: <http://example.org/>; rel=index;
             rel="start http://example.net/relation/other"

I think it would be better to split this into multiple examples to show IRIs
being used as relation types, and another showing IRIs mixed with registered
values. As it stands, it could be mistaken that this forms a single value:

  start http://example.net/relation/other

Perhaps the first use of an IRI in this document should be:

       Link: <http://example.org/>; rel=index;
             rel="http://example.net/relation/other"

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 07:56:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:21 GMT