W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:37:52 +1000
Message-Id: <57894778-6B82-47CE-9B8D-0466F5183DA9@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


I still regularly get queries about the status of this; there are a  
fair number of interested people, so I think it's a good idea.

The blocking issue is 'rel', as discussed earlier; in a nutshell,  
HTML and Atom both have the concept of a link relation, but they have  
different syntax and possibly different semantics.

I've been thinking of writing up an I-D describing the problem, but  
as of yet haven't had time.


On 2007/09/03, at 4:55 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
> 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.
> Best regards, Julian

Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 05:39:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:31 UTC