- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:01:32 +0200
- To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sam Johnston wrote: > ... > How do others feel about this? I'm disinclined to do so unless > there's considerable value in it. I could see adding a new appendix > suggesting things that new applications of linking that use this > framework, however; would that be useful? > > > I would try to keep them separate as much as possible - the Link: header > will be long-lived compared to the bootstrapped registry and people > should know well to refer to the "real" registry (and have the benefit > of seeing how to reference it). Is it possible to mark the section to be > removed on publication? If the pertinent information will be captured by > IANA anyway then that would seem to be the preferred option - otherwise > it's just cruft. > ... That's not going to work, as the registry entries are supposed to reference specifications, in this case (for the old entries), the Web Linking spec. It may make sense to keep the Link registry procedure and the Link header in a common document, and just move the re-registration of old entries into a separate document, though. > ... > I think that at the very least, it needs to be specified that the > anchor attribute is not used by default; i.e., specific applications > of linking need to specify that the anchor attribute is to be used. > > I'm also amenable to deprecating or removing it, but would like to > hear from others about this. > > > Unless I've missed something, most applications that need to refer to > specific parts of a document could still do so by embedding the anchor > in the href. > ... The anchor refers to the source, not the destination. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 08:02:17 UTC