A 25 Sep POWDER draft seems to assume the HTTP Link: header will be ratified. I made a comment questioning that assumption. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2007Oct/0002.html When Mark Nottingham said the next step is to discuss in the http list, I said... "I don't see what's to discuss. Haven't we already reached the point where the burden is on those who want something different?" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2007Oct/0009.html But re-reading a 15 Oct msg of his in the http list, I see a wide range of questions about how links, profiles, and link relationships should work across HTTP, HTML, and Atom. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007OctDec/0046.html I haven't finished thinking it thru, but I'm interested to talk about it with the TAG a bit in preparation for the W3C/IETF liaison telcon 23 Oct. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 20:50:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 September 2008 07:02:17 GMT