- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:03:17 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 06:03:43 UTC
Good idea :) will do. On Oct 28, 2013 11:01 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > On 29/10/2013, at 4:59 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 28, 2013 10:48 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 24/09/2013, at 5:17 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Just a general FYI... I have submitted iteration -04 of the > > > > LINK/UNLINK draft with a few minor editorial fixes... and, I have > > > > formally requested Last Call status as an Independent Submission on > > > > the Standards Track. > > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-link-method-04 > > > > > > In Section 2 of -05: > > > > > > "For any pair of resources, exactly one relationship of any given type > can exist." > > > > > > That's a new and apparently backwards-incompatible change to the model > of linking on the Web... e.g., consider "stylesheet". > > > > > > > No, read it again, as a uniqueness constraint on the tuple (resource, > link relation, resource). That's not new or novel. > > Right. Thanks :) > > > > Also, can these methods be made conditional? > > > > > > > Yes. Of course. > > Mention it in the text, then; it's not automatic. Examples would be good > too. > > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 06:03:43 UTC