- From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:27:20 +0100
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 09:48:38AM +0000, 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.”
On an unrelated tangent, this section caused me some initial confusion.
The single example given is:
Note that link-values may convey multiple links between the same
target and context IRIs; for example:
Link: <http://example.org/>; rel=index;
rel="start http://example.net/relation/other"
I think it would be better to split this into multiple examples to show IRIs
being used as relation types, and another showing IRIs mixed with registered
values. As it stands, it could be mistaken that this forms a single value:
start http://example.net/relation/other
Perhaps the first use of an IRI in this document should be:
Link: <http://example.org/>; rel=index;
rel="http://example.net/relation/other"
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 12:28:02 UTC