- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:47:05 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... >>> 5. The Link Header Field >>> Link = "Link" ":" #link-value >>> link-value = "<" URI-Reference ">" *( ";" link-param ) ) >>> link-param = ( ( "rel" "=" relation-type ) >>> | ( "rev" "=" relation-type ) >>> | ( "type" "=" type-name ) >>> | ( "title" "=" quoted-string ) >>> | ( link-extension ) ) >>> link-extension = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ] >>> relation-type = URI-Reference | >>> <"> URI-Reference *( SP URI-Reference) <"> >> >> I note that we lost the "anchor" parameter defined in RFC 2068, >> Section 19.6.2.4, so we are not strictly speaking backwards-compatible... > > Well, in the sense that it can be a link-extension, we are... > ... But only in that sense. "anchor", as defined in RFC 2068: ...The anchor parameter MAY be used to indicate a source anchor other than the entire current resource, such as a fragment of this resource or a third resource. essentially is a must-understand parameter; just like rel and rev. Ignoring it will lead to a different interpretation of the header. Now this may be ok if nobody uses it, in which case we probably should point out somewhere that it was left out. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 08:47:46 UTC