- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:33:08 -0700
- To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Harry Halpin wrote: > Brian Smith wrote: > > 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 > > > That's one experimental way to do it, but again - registering > custom link headers in general I think are a *still > centralized* solution in comparison with a single Link header > with extensibility built in. I do not want to register a > custom link header every time I want to have an application > use a link header in a way that needs URI extensibility to > determine its type. > > If I use "Opt" do I have to register my link header names, or > is it a free-for-all? The point of the RFC 2774 mechanism is to allow the use of unregistered headers without worrying about naming conflicts. It works just like XML namespaces: "http://example.org/foo"; ns=00 <=> xmlns:x00='http://example.org/foo' "http://example.com"; ns=01 <=> xmlns:x01='http://example.com' - Brian
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 15:33:18 UTC