- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:31:49 +1100
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It's proving difficult to define rev in a meaningful way that's specific to the Link header without accommodating it in section 4 (or alternatively, directly in the registry, although I'm not terribly fond of going in that direction), especially since there are apparently conflicting uses of it in HTML2 and HTML4. My inclination is to accommodate it syntactically as a link-extension and note the problem in the Using Link in HTML4 appendix, but not to try to define its semantics. Is this what you had in mind? Otherwise, could you (or someone else) please provide some straw-man text to discuss? On 10/12/2008, at 8:37 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > We should remove the mistaken usage of "outbound" and "inbound" and > the definition of rev should be in section 4 (and deprecated because > experience has shown that reversing semantics is less understandable > by people than choosing inverse relation names). -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 05:32:34 UTC