Re: NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 20:55:52 +0200, Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> the current editor's draft of HTML5 requires User-Agents to respect 
>> the HTTP Link header (as specified in RFC2068, and dropped from 
>> RFC2616) -- see <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-link>:
>>
>> "Some versions of HTTP defined a Link: header, to be processed like a 
>> series of link  elements. When processing links, those must be taken 
>> into consideration as well. For the purposes of ordering, links 
>> defined by HTTP headers must be assumed to come before any links in 
>> the document, in the order that they were given in the HTTP entity 
>> header. Relative URIs in these headers must be resolved according to 
>> the rules given in HTTP, not relative to base URIs set by the document 
>> (e.g. using a base element or xml:base attributes). [RFC2616] [RFC2068]"
>>
>> So either this is just wishful thinking, or implementation support for 
>> the Link header has indeed improved lately (I'll guess in FF and 
>> Opera). In the latter case, we may want to re-add it in RFC2616bis.
> 
> There's also a Default-Style header. For both it's not really to me 
> though what RFC 2616 would say about them though, other than maybe 
> register the names.

One difference is that "Default-Style" is defined by HTML4, not an HTTP 
spec.

The "Link" header on the other hand is only defined by RFC2068, which 
has been obsoleted by RFC2616; so it's not defined by a "current" IETF 
spec. Furthermore, it defines something of universal use (for non-HTML 
documents as well), so it seems unwise to define it inside HTML.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 15:48:14 UTC