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

Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> The disadvantages are: [...]
>> - incompatibility with RDF properties
> If you want compatibility with RDF properties, the specification will
> have to state that all URI extension relations MUST return a 303 See
> Other response when dereferenced, as a consequence of this finding:

Why can an XML namespace be an information resource, and a link relation 
can not? (Noting that the serves namespace documents with a 
status of 200).

I'd rather have this specification not go near this whole discussion 
(and yes, previously discussed in 

> Otherwise, you will have the situation where there can be valid URI
> extension relations which aren't compatible with RDF, and that the
> only way to test will be to dereference and place burden on the
> server.

Can you cite a document that states that an RDF property is not an 
Information Resource?

>> and Atom link relations.
> Atom link relations are IRIs, whereas the Link header extension
> relations only cover URIs. So there's a similar incompatibility case
> here, though at least this doesn't require a server dereference to
> test.
> Overall I see the case that you're making for URIs, but it would be
> great if this could be tempered with some prose that mitigates against
> the inherent disadvantage of using URIs which Anne van K. has pointed
> out.

I happen to agree with that, see Point 2 in 

> ...

BR, Julian

Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 11:46:24 UTC