- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:28:39 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren 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. > > I agree with this comment as well. Using URIs as identifiers leads to > consumers trying to retrieve the URI. (See Netscape RSS DTD, W3C systeam.) > ... I think that's a misleading example, as the DTD URI is *supposed* to be dereferenced. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 11:29:29 UTC