- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:02:08 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "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>
On Jun 13, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > 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" Why mention of "fixed resources" specifically? Is this meant to supply that responses to requests about "generic resources" should not use link headers? -Alan
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 14:03:23 UTC