- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:20:42 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > ... > 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. > ... +1. As IANA currently maintains this as "Atom Link Relations", would we need to update that registry somehow? > 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. I like that idea; however I'm not totally sure that this is within our charter... BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 12:21:09 UTC