Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt

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 

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