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

Re: Uniform access

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:47:16 -0400
Message-Id: <7AE7BEAA-E926-47B5-9F6B-77424531ACC1@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Stuart is precisely correct. I've been waiting to discharge my action  
to communicate the outcome (ACTION-154) until the F2F minutes [1]  
were approved, which happened yesterday.

At the TAG face-to-face meeting in Bristol on 20 May 2008, the TAG  
took up the issue of the appropriate use (if any) of the HTTP Link:  
response header, with consideration of design alternatives and issues  
as summarized in [2]. After a lively discussion, we agreed as follows:

"The TAG endorses http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link- 
header-01.txt and standardization of the HTTP Link: header for use  
cases such as POWDER and metadata about fixed resources, and GRDDL  
transformation links"

This resolution passed without objection.

Dan C has an action item to report a bug in Mark's draft around the  
formation of relationship URIs from non-URI short names such as "next".

I would like (unofficially) to point out that this is not the end of  
the story; the RFC draft needs to go through IETF process (currently  
in the HTTP WG), and of course there is much that might be said (and  
has been said) about best practices and possible uses beyond the  
particular applications listed, about which the resolution says nothing.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion.

Best
Jonathan

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/20-minutes#item06  -- search  
down for 'Moving on to "redirections57"...'
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-access.html  a.k.a. http:// 
sw.neurocommons.org/2008/uniform-access.html


On Jun 13, 2008, at 5:21 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:

> Hello Ray,
>
> The most recent related discussion that I'm aware of was at the  
> recent TAG F2F [1] - it has been being discussed under our issue-57  
> (httpRedirections-57 [2]).
>
> You'll find that the discussion ends in a resolution and an action  
> to Jonathan to communicate it publically. I suspect that he's been  
> waiting of us to approve our minutes (we did that on out telcon  
> yesterday) before acting.
>
> HTH,
>
> Stuart
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/05/20-minutes#item06
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
>> Sent: 12 June 2008 22:34
>> To: www-tag@w3.org
>> Subject: Uniform access
>>
>>
>> During the time that the thread "Uniform Access to
>> Descriptions"  (which
>> changed subject to  "Uniform Access to ...."   in all, about
>> 220 messages)
>> was active,  I didn't follow it closely but but just now read
>> through the
>> entire thread.  It seems to have ended abruptly May 9  - at
>> least, that's
>> the last message I can see. Did it morph into yet another
>> subject, one that
>> perhaps I didn't recognize?
>>
>> I realize I risk generating another 200+ messages, but may I
>> ask: what (if
>> any) was the resolution, or what is the status (if any) of this  
>> issue?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --Ray
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 12:48:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:58 GMT