Re: [draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06] rev

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I know where you're coming from.
> However, rev's semantics are *extremely* muddy and effectively 
> format-specific; I think we're already at the point where it is 

Really? Pointer?

> re-defined every time it's used. And, defining it syntactically in Link 
> without defining its semantics doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

Minimally we should ensure that it's not used as a name for future 
extension parameters if that use would conflict with the text in RFC 2068.

> Thus, it seems to me that the options are to either take it out of the 
> syntax completely, or leave it in the syntax for the sole purpose of 
> deprecating it (since we can't really define crisp semantics for it).

If these are the choices, I'd definitively prefer the latter.

BR, Julian

Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 08:22:21 UTC