- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:55:31 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > Ah, you've rumbled my secret plan for a link relation caching startup; > ah well, there's still DTDs, XML Namespaces and the like out there. > > I'll have a think about this; I agree that SHOULD is too strong, but it > would be nice to allow the semweb people to do what they need to if they > really want to. At the moment, I'm thinking about making the entire > thing non-normative; i.e., shoulds instead of SHOULD. I'll try to float > some proposed text in a little while.s ...but my understanding was that at least *some* of the semweb community want link relations NOT to be "information" resources, thus expect a 303, not 200 (*). I think avoiding this discussion would be good. BR, Julian PS: I wouldn't worry about that until the W3C manages to respond with 303 for XML namespace URIs... :-)
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 09:56:18 UTC