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

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: <>; 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