Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:28:57AM -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> All you have to do to fix this is clearly state that 'up' can be any parent,
> not just a direct parent. My issue is not with having a generic and flexible
> relation type, but one that is failing to clearly communicate what it is.

I'm actually confused about what you want clarification on.

You previously wrote:

> I can't figure out if 'a parent' can be any parent of a direct parent. If it
> means a direct parent, your theory of 'automatically works' breaks because UAs
> will expect the document to be the direct parent, not just a document
> somewhere 'up' there. If it means any parent, then you can't express a direct
> parent, but can express a second direct parent.

And the registration says:

  A URI that refers to a parent document in a hierarchy of documents.

I think the "a" in that sentence allows you to choose any.


Noah Slater,

Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:42:05 UTC