- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:07:52 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
OK, good. Regardless of where the documentation lives it looks like you should either use a base URI that ends in / or specify concatenation instead of relative URI resolution (which would be inelegant). My vote would be for /, with a non-200 response to respect the idea that relations (in the sense of logical entities) don't have representations (in the sense of RFC 2616). The response could be, say, a 303, redirecting to a file containing documentation (maybe wrapped in RDF) for that relation. Best Jonathan On May 30, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Jonathan Rees wrote: >> Re http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link- >> header-01.txt : >> Relationship values are URIs that identify the type of link. If the >> relationship is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be considered >> to be >> "http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html#", and the >> value >> MUST be present in the link relation registry. >> My understanding of the way that a relative URI gets combined with >> a base URI (RFC 2396 section 5.2) is that if you combine the above >> base URI with "next" you get >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/next >> not >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html#next >> and I think you intend the latter, not the former. > > This is a known problem; IANA is serving the link relations page at > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html>, but RFC4287 > says that the base URI is <http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/ > >. See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JanMar/ > 0543.html>. > > > ... > > BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 16:08:38 UTC