- From: Michael Burrows <asplake@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:41:41 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I have a question on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05: is there an agreed mechanism for clients to indicate whether they want link headers, the equivalent html/xml elements, or neither? It seems wasteful to generate redundant or unneeded data, especially while client support for the headers is not widespread. Apologies if this has been covered previously (I did review the April-June archive). Meanwhile, you may be interested in an experimental implementation of link headers (&/or elements) for Ruby on Rails, generating them from metadata constructed from the application's routing config. Please drop me a line if you'd like to play with it. There is a Python library too but it lacks the server framework integration. I went with the hash URI approach [1] to identifying extension relation types, with the fragment pointing inside the metadata obtainable (in multiple formats) via the "describedby" links. See for example the last two links below: Link: <http://example.com/users/dojo>; rel="self"; type="user", <http://example.com/described_routes/user>; rel="describedby"; type="ResourceTemplate", <http://example.com/described_routes/user?user_id=dojo>; rel="describedby"; type="ResourceTemplate", <http://example.com/users>; rel="up"; type="users", <http://example.com/users/dojo/edit>; rel="edit"; rel="http://example.com/described_routes/user#edit"; type="edit_user", <http://example.com/users/dojo/articles>; rel="http://example.com/described_routes/user#articles"; type="user_articles" If I interpret the spec correctly, there is no strong guidance on the use of the "type" attribute. I hope that my usage here seems reasonable. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri Regards, Mike mjb@asplake.co.uk http://positiveincline.com http://twitter.com/asplake
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 09:42:18 UTC