- From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:41:25 +0100
- To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:42:05 UTC