- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:06:59 -0700
- To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Harry Halpin wrote: > Brian Smith wrote: > > Why don't you just create a new HTTP header and register it? > > The effort to register a new HTTP header would be the same > > as the effort to register a new link relation for the > > "Link:" header. Plus, you wouldn't have to wait for "Link:" > > to become standardized. > Link+rel with URIs Headers and Link+Profile Headers are a > decentralized solution to this problem (i.e. would not > require a new link relation to be standardized at all, > and in the future). We'd rather have one good decentralized > way of using the Link header be part of HTTP than have to > register a new HTTP header for every technology :) > > Perhaps that is just my preference for URI-based > extensibility and decentralization. However, I do think it > makes more sense long-term. URI-based extensibility for HTTP is RFC 2774 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt): Opt: "http://example.org/foo"; ns=00 00-My-Custom-Link-Header: http://example.org/bar 00-Another-Custom-Link-Header: http://example.org/baz Opt: "http://example.com"; ns=01 01-My-Custom-Link-Header: http://example.com/something 01-Yet-Another-Header: http://example.com/something The RFC 2774 mechanism isn't restricted to hyperlinks, either. Regards, Brian
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 15:07:12 UTC