W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Link: relation registry and 303

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 08:14:13 +1100
Cc: Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Message-Id: <C34AA55E-4324-40CB-B09F-65801695D3BE@mnot.net>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>


On 03/02/2009, at 5:15 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think that's a good idea.  Why not just require that the
>>> URI be entirely lowercase
>>
>> That seems like an artificial and constraining requirement, but it
>> does have the benefit of simplicity. However, it would still require
>> case normalisation to take place for HTML (4 and 5).
>>
>>> , or that it can (in this context) be
>>> compared case-insensitive?
>>
>> That was the original approach taken.
>
> 'original' as in the current round of recent drafts, or original as  
> in when the field was described as an sgml-name?

Ah, sorry -- 'original' in the scope of my drafts.


> Anyway, case-insensitive comparison, at least of the final path  
> segment if not the full URI would seem a reasonable pragmatic step.
>
>> Bifurcation has the benefit of limiting case insensitivity to just
>> registered values, instead of all URIs; I imagine that the Semantic
>> Web community would take some issue with that (although I'd love to
>> hear feedback from them).
>
> Speaking of "Bifurcation" seems a bit melodramtic - and promulgates  
> a notion of spliting which you earlier said was not your intent.

Now I'm confused. My intent isn't to be melodramatic at all. My  
current, unpublished draft has split the relation types into  
registered (token) and extension (URI), based upon discussion in early  
December. My intent is to either confirm this as the correct path, or  
find a new one.


>> SemWeb folks, if we were to do the above, and specify that link
>> relation URIs pointed to documents describing the relation, would  
>> that
>> work for you? If not, why? Please state your answer in terms of  
>> issues
>> that affect actual implementations using those link relations.
>
> I guess I more of a sem web person, but I don't specially speak for  
> the community.

Of course.

> Personnally, (and probably preversely) I'd still take the view that  
> the rel values are URI names for the relations - I'd not be inclined  
> to give up on that view.
>
> Pragmatically, I'd probably (personnally) attribute no particular  
> significance to a 200 or 303 returned by dereferencing the relations  
> full URI name (might special case it for shortnamed rel values  
> anyway) and hope that whatever I got back directly or after  
> redirection had something to say about the relation I'm interested  
> in that I was prepared to believe. ie. I'd probably only believe  
> that the relation was a document if the description I'd obtained  
> explicitly said that it was. I'd ty to be robust to folks not doing  
> the 303 step, even though as things stand at the moment - I'd prefer  
> that they did.


OK, thanks.

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 21:14:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:12 GMT