- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:06:22 +0200
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03.10.2010 18:58, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:55:05AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>> Content-status: deprecated
>> Link:<haproxy-1.4.9.tar.gz>; rel=newest-version
>
> Yes, probably something like this. It would make a good use of
> the Link header. And doing it this way is a good idea because
> it even allows multiple Link headers in case other branches may
> be suggested. For instance :
>
> Link:<haproxy-1.4.8.1.tar.gz>; rel=fixed-version; title="Fixes critical bug"
> Link:<haproxy-1.4.9.tar.gz>; rel=updated-version; title="Latest in same branch"
> Link:<haproxy-2.0.2.tar.gz>; rel=newest-version; title="Latest in latest branch"
>
> In case nobody would object, how could we move on ? Doing so involves a
> new header ("content-status"), so that should probably require proper
Do we really need Content-Status?
> registration. Also, I've not seen any registry for all relation-types,
> so we might need to define a few. Also, does a draft need to be written
> to advance ?
The Link Relations registry is defined in RFC5988-to-be
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-nottingham-http-link-header>).
Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 17:06:59 UTC