Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05

Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> § 4.2.
> 
>    “Applications that don't merit a registered relation type may use an
>    extension relation type, which is a URI [RFC3986] that uniquely
>    identifies the relation type.”
> 
> Why not use reversed domain names? For example:
> 
>      Link: <http://example.org/>; rel=index;
>           rel="start net.example.rel.other"
> 
> The advantage is brevity. Since the specification also says that
> clients SHOULD NOT dereference the URIs identifying the relation
> types, it doesn't seem to matter that the extension type be a URI,
> except for consistency with the URI forms of the registered relation
> types.
 > ...

The disadvantages are:

- potential ambiguity when domain ownership changes (which, when using 
URIs, can be worked around by choosing a different scheme),

- the requirement to actually have a domain name available for that use, and

- incompatibility with RDF properties and Atom link relations.

> § 5.
> 
>    “[...] It is semantically equivalent to the
>    <LINK> element in HTML, as well as the atom:link feed-level element
>    in Atom [RFC4287].”
> 
> Doesn't this mean that HTML user agents will have to support the following?
> 
>    <meta http-equiv="Link" value='&lt;style.css&gt;;
>          rel="stylesheet"; type="text/css"'>

I don't think it means that, at least not according to the HTML 
specification.

> Why burden HTML user agents in this way? Could you specify that Link
> has no meaning when used in conjunction with meta/@http-equiv in HTML?

It seems that clarifying the use of meta/@http-equiv is something the 
HTML WG should do.

>    “Here, the second link has a title encoded in UTF-8, uses the German
>    language ("de"), and contains the Unicode code point \u'00E4' ("LATIN
>    SMALL LETTER A WITH DIAERESIS").”
> 
> \u'00E4' is a character, not a code point. A code point in Unicode is
> simply a number, so the code point here is 0xE4, or 228 in decimal.
> The convention for representing a character, moreover, is U+HHHH; in
> this case, you would use U+00E4. I would suggest changing this passage
> to something like:
> 
>    Here, the second link has a title encoded in UTF-8, uses the German
>    language ("de"), and contains the Unicode character U+00E4 ("LATIN
>    SMALL LETTER A WITH DIAERESIS").

Correct. That text was suggested by me; Mark, please take out the \u 
notation.

 > ...

BR, Julian