Re: Feedback for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

A separate header is by far the best way to do this.

On 02/12/2008, at 7:35 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

>> 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).
> This looks like the more promising option.
>> Another one would be to use a different header, such as Link- 
>> Template,
>> defined in version 00 of the draft
>> (<
>> 00#section-5>).
> The problem with that is the lack of equal treatment this whole  
> draft is trying to establish for Link header/element. This will also  
> stand in the way of the new suggestion to simplify /site-meta to  
> switch to a simple text document with Link header records (with the  
> "Link: " stripped).
>> Personally, I'd like to see this move ahead without any dependency on
>> URI templates.
> I agree. There is urgent need in getting this spec finalized and the  
> templates discussion is far from conclusion. But there are enough  
> compelling reasons to bake into this spec support for such future  
> extensions. I think the suggestion to ignore non-compliant URIs is  
> the best option, and I would prefer to see it indicated in the ABNF,  
> but if not, a simple clarification would suffice.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 01:32:33 UTC