- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:21:33 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 25/07/2009, at 12:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> If we can consider the media attribute to be an link-extension, why >> can we not do the same for rev? > > As per recent discussion, done; see > > http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07-from-6.diff.html > ... I still think this is the wrong approach. "rev" has been defined in RFC2068. We can explain why relying on it is a bad idea, and suggest alternatives. But excluding it from the base definition essentially allows re-defining it as extension meaning something else, and that would be bad if a recipient implements RFC2068. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 07:22:23 UTC