- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 02:02:38 +0100
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-10-29 06:59, James M Snell wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2013 10:48 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net > <mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote: > > > > > > On 24/09/2013, at 5:17 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com > <mailto: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. > ... Not convinced. Consider the various target attributes, or extension parameters. If they do not contribute to the uniqueness constraint, you *are* constraining the linking model. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 01:03:09 UTC