W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Moving forward on Site Metadata [siteData-36]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 13:55:24 -0500
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1147200925.22658.212.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 11:09 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 2006/05/05, at 3:06 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
[...]
> > Using the favico use case, I think the idea is something
> > like:
> >
> > C->S:
> > 	GET /some/page HTTP/1.1
> > 	Host: www.foo.org
> >
> > S->C:
> > 	200 OK
> > 	Link: rel="meta" </sitedescr>
> >
> > And in /sitedescr we'd have something like
> >
> >   <http://www.foo.org/sitedescr#thisSite>
> >     urispace:prefix "http://www.foo.org";
> >     chrome:icon <http://www.foo.org/icons/site_icon>.
> 
> Is the value of link/@rel="meta" contrained (e.g., it's invariant  
> across a site)?

No... the invariance across a site is expressed with urispace:prefix.


> BTW, it is possible to use OPTIONS in combination with content  
> negotiation on Apache; it's surprisingly easy -- just a simple  
> rewrite rule.

Hmmm... something about that makes my head hurt.

Besides, OPTIONS feels like PROPFIND... I expect to use GET
when I'm fetching content. I see there's a Location:
header that provides a URI, but still... it doesn't
feel right.


> > You're dangerously close to volunteering to do my action for me ;-)
> 
> I'm happy to give it a shot.

OK, if you beat me to it, great.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 18:55:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:40 GMT