W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2008

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:19:38 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0811301919s3159c526x84810b169580f0ae@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Atom Syntax" <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Hello Mark,

One minor comment concerning the conversion the profile to link. In
that example, a relative URI is used as the target of the link.
Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't the  html document in which the
original link was embedded have had an explicit <base> element?
Elsewhere you point out that the document <base> elements can't be
used to resolve relative URIs in Link headers. Therefore in some cases
the example, if copied literally, would lead to errors.


On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> This is a fairly substantial rewrite of the spec, based upon the observation
> that the link header really isn't the central concept here; it's link
> relations themselves.
> Changelog:
> o  Inverted focus from Link headers to link relations.
> o  Specified was a link relation type is.
> o  Based on discussion, re-added 'rev'.
> o  Changed IESG Approval to IETF Consensus for relation registrations
>   (i.e., require a document).
> o  Updated RFC2434 reference to RFC5226.
> o  Registered relations SHOULD conform to sgml-name.
> o  Cautioned against confusing relation types with media types.
> I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding registration requirements,
> as I think that's the biggest remaining sticking point. Note that it was
> previously "IESG Approval"; I've changed it to "IETF Review" (nee "IETF
> Consensus") so that a document is required. Also, I believe this still
> accommodates other standards orgs (like the W3C) using their processes to
> publish documents that register entries, just as with media types.
> Assuming this is acceptable and no serious shortcomings are found in this
> draft, I think this document is ready to progress; i.e., I believe (speaking
> as an individual) there is consensus within the Atom community to make the
> registry modifications, and the feedback I've heard from the HTML community
> is that it's not necessary to have a tight integration with HTML4 or HTML5.
> Regards,
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org>
>> Date: 1 December 2008 12:03:54 PM
>> To: mnot@mnot.net
>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>  draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03
>> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt has been
>> successfuly submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the IETF repository.
>> Filename:        draft-nottingham-http-link-header
>> Revision:        03
>> Title:           Link Relations and HTTP Header Linking
>> Creation_date:   2008-12-01
>> WG ID:           Independent Submission
>> Number_of_pages: 15
>> Abstract:
>> This document specifies relation types for Web links, and defines a
>> registry for them.  It also defines how to send such links in HTTP
>> headers with the Link header-field.
>> The IETF Secretariat.
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 03:20:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:59 UTC