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

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> ...
>> 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 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JanMar/0223.html>.
> 
>> ...
> ...

Turns out this was indeed addressed in this draft:

"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. Although the URI MAY point to a resource 
that contains a definition of the semantics of the relation type, 
clients SHOULD NOT access that resource to avoid overburdening its 
server." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.html#rfc.section.4.2.p.1>

BR, Julian