- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:58:17 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > I think perhaps you need to talk to Roy about that... > > At the moment, my intent is to remove 'rev' from the BNF and state how new parameters can be added (either by updating the document, for parameters common to many relation types, or on a per-type / per-application basis). -1 / +1 Yes, the extensibility point should be documented. But no, rev should be documented. RFC 2068 already defines what it is, so the only thing an extension could ever do is to re-introduce that definition. There may be good reasons to *discourage* it's use, but that's really different from not defining it at all. I think we should park this issue until we know what happens with the anchor parameter; after all, a link relation using rel= can always be rewritten into one using anchor=. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 15:59:03 UTC