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

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:46:25 -0400
Message-Id: <9B4B28AF-E591-44D3-80E9-825C5A2FCE64@creativecommons.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

The alternatives are surveyed in the bibliographic wiki page http:// 
esw.w3.org/topic/FindingResourceDescriptions that I referred you to  
earlier, and include alternative headers (other than Link:),  
alternative HTTP methods (other than GET and HEAD), and alternative  
protocols (other than HTTP). I have just reorganized the page a bit  
to make these choices easier to see. I have not prepared a summary of  
the whole area. I (agreeing with at least one other TAG member)  
thought it would be a better investment to spend time on use cases,  
so that we can figure out what problems we're trying to solve and  
establish criteria for deciding which proposal solves them best.

Jonathan

On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> What are the alternate solutions?
>
> On 20/03/2008, at 12:15 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mark. This looks quite good, and the use of URIrefs for  
>> relationships, rather than tokens from an ad hoc vocabulary,  
>> addresses one of the concerns that came up at a recent TAG meeting.
>>
>> What this needs (as far as my effort is concerned) is arguments  
>> against alternative solutions. Use cases could go a long way in  
>> providing these. I expect these have already been part of your  
>> discussion. Pointers to the relevant discussion on ietf-http-wg  
>> would be helpful, as I'm having difficulty locating it.
>>
>> Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 14:47:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:53 GMT