- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:50:59 -0700
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Mar 11, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Harry Halpin wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> No, I meant the link header...: >> >> Link: <http://example.com/grddl.xslt>; >> rel="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view/transform" > Yep, that would be another way to do it, but only *if* rel allows > URIs. > I thought it did not. Am I wrong? It does not currently allow URIs. The link relationship space is supposed to be small, universal, and standardized (just like HTTP methods). That is why it is better not to allow an infinite number of relation types, but instead define a few types that allows an infinite number of relations to be understood. However, RDF pretty much screwed us all on that one, so the reasonable next step is to allow URIs and have all flat names be relative to the same link relationship registry as Atom. Note, however, that the following performs the same job as Profile without new protocol and without excessive bytes on the wire: Link: <http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view>; rel="profile" Link: <http://example.com/mymicroprofile>; rel="profile" Link: <http://example.com/grddl.xslt>; rel="grddl-rdf" Yes, there is some tiny possibility that two different profiles will use the same relationship name for entirely different purposes. I don't care. If they can't be distinguished by context, then they shouldn't be used together. Profiles are a crutch. BTW, it is my opinion that both Link and PATCH should be restored to the main HTTP specs. HTTP is incomplete without them. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 17:51:18 UTC