- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:15:25 +0200
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > "Honestly, after I read the Nottingham's draft, I dislike it even > more. The LINK header is essentially a "cute" way to move some of > the RDF assertions into the HTTP headers. If you exam the proposed > Link header more closely, they are more or less the Dublin Core. > What it will lead to is what you described as "transclude" all URIs > into the headers. It is very dangerous and very bad. Consider the > copyright LINK. If the content carries a copyright statement, which > is different from the LINK's copyright? Which one is the right one?". FTR, that is complete nonsense. Link was defined in 1992. It is already an HTTP header field. It's purpose is to define typed links from one resource to another resource, particularly when the representation is not hypertext. It is one of the key components of the Web architecture that was left out of RFC 2616 because the editor was in a rush to move to Draft Standard status, not because we had any intention to remove the field from HTTP. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 21:16:06 UTC