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

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

From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:58:36 +0100
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1206035916.13072.10.camel@daneel>



tor 2008-03-20 klockan 17:18 +0000 skrev Phil Archer:
> There's a lot of crossover going on here... the discussion about 
> relationship types has played out extensively on the IETF/HTTP WG list. 
> See, for example, Julian Reschke's comment [1].
> 
> Mark's original proposal was to use Link-Profile to make the 
> relationship type extensible which seems sensible at first pass, but...
> 
> Link: <file.ext1>; rel="rel-1"
> Link: <file.ext2>; rel="rel-2"
> Link-Profile: <profile.html>

Wow, talk about overkill.

Prefixes are great if you have a file with tens or hundreds of
occurrences of a URI. For a handful, which is all we expect to have in a
HTTP header, right (RIGHT??), prefixing is completely overkill, IMHO.

That said, having a default prefix *does* make sense, because that does
not introduce any new HTTP header mechanism.

Just my 0.02 kronor.

/Mikael

> 
> Does the profile define the first or second relationship type, or both?
> 
> Link-Prefix would have the same problem but there may be a way through.
> 
> Could IANA be the default Link-Prefix? So if that header is absent, OK, 
> you know that any relative URI is relative to the IANA namespace.
> 
> If supplied, then the prefix URI MUST apply to ALL relationship types, 
> even if using one from the IANA namespace - and whatever the namespace 
> is should use something like owl:sameAs to map from its own terms to the 
> IANA ones - seems a bit wasteful.
> 
> Alternatively, we could, perhaps have an id for each Link, something like
> 
> Link: <file.ext1>; rel="rel-1"; id="a";
> Link: <file.ext2>; rel="rel-2"; id="b";
> Link: <my.css>; rel="stylehseet"; id="c";
> Link-Profile: <profile.namespace> for="a b";
> 
> (i.e. the Profile header would take a space separated list of 
> identifiers for the link headers to which it applied. Again, the 
> un-qualified relationship type (header c) is from the IANA namespace.
> 
> Phil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JanMar/0468.html
> 
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > Having the link types be URIs will be a great help in solving a number 
> > of issues we've been dealing with around associating metadata with 
> > resources.
> > 
> > I have one suggestion for the document - rather than having the 
> > link-extensions, with the default (i.e. not necessarily stated in the 
> > headers) base of
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html I would instead 
> > either leave that mechanism out, or add something like a Link-Prefix: 
> > header that allows one to set a prefix in the way one does for 
> > namespaces or RDF serializations.
> > 
> > Ideally the IANA registry would be served as RDF (perhaps by conneg). In 
> > this way, resolution and discovery of relations could be uniform. An 
> > agent wishing to discover what
> > 
> > Link-Prefix: "", "http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations#"
> > Link: <http://www.cern.ch/TheBook/chapter2>; rel="Previous"
> > 
> > Would do exactly the same thing as working with:
> > 
> > Link-Prefix: "dc:", "http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
> > Link: <http://mumble.net/~alanr/ThePersonAlanRuttenberg>; rel="dc:creator"
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 19, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> See referenced I-D for a rough idea of what I've been kicking around 
> >> WRT the Link header with a few people.
> >>
> >> Note that while it resolves the relation mess, it still has to get 
> >> some buy-in by both the HTML and Atom communities, as it asks some 
> >> non-trivial things of them.
> >>
> >> Also, this draft is still rough, with some outstanding issues already 
> >> identified. See discussion on the ietf-http-wg list.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >>
> >> [ note: I've deleted the MIME attachment, because the last time I 
> >> forwarded this message, it appeared to crash Mail.app instances that 
> >> received it. Oops. ]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> >>> Date: 18 March 2008 5:30:01 AM
> >>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt
> >>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >>>
> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >>> directories.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     Title        : HTTP Header Linking
> >>>     Author(s)    : M. Nottingham
> >>>     Filename    : draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt
> >>>     Pages        : 13
> >>>     Date        : 2008-3-17
> >>>     
> >>> This document clarifies the status of the Link HTTP header and
> >>>  attempts to consolidate link relations in a single registry.
> >>>
> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >>>
> >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> >>> Internet-Draft.
> >>> ______________________
> >>> I-D-Announce mailing list
> >>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
-- 
<mikael@nilsson.name>

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 17:59:40 GMT

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