- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:36:09 +0200
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
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
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 15:36:58 UTC