- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:11:26 +0100
- To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > ... >> Sorry? If the URI-Reference is empty, then the target URI is the one of >> the context. >> >> If you want to introduce an extension point for URI templates, we'll >> need to specify it explicitly. > > Where? In this spec? I don't think Link should directly deal with URI-templates (would save me a lot of work but still, not really the general-purpose use-case this spec seems to address). But if you don't think there is a simple way to extend link to support templates, we should discuss it now. > ... Well, right now there's no extension point; the target does not allow templating, and a parameter can't override it (recipients will ignore extension parameters they don't understand). One potential solution would be to state that if a link target that is not a syntactically valid URI-reference is reserved for future extensions (so clients ignore it for now). Another one would be to use a different header, such as Link-Template, defined in version 00 of the draft (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-00#section-5>). Personally, I'd like to see this move ahead without any dependency on URI templates. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 08:12:12 UTC