W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:28:39 +0200
Message-ID: <49E867E7.2050000@gmx.de>
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 

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 11:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC