- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:53:14 +1000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 31 Aug 2015, at 4:49 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > -------- > In message <19B50A7C-DE2B-4565-B4C5-17615999D027@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri > tes: > >> Before we get to that, though =E2=80=94 is there a compelling reason not >> to use the Link header for this? > > The Link header could theoretically be used to point to non-blocked versions > of the content, but I don't think that schenario is likely. That's not what I meant. The Link header is a way to put a URL into HTTP headers, taking care of all of the syntax issues, HTTP corner cases, URL issues like what the base URL is, and giving us an opportunity to more easily optimise the syntax if we decide to do that in HTTP/3. In this case, instead of doing: Blocked-By: http://example.com/ we'd do: Link: <http://example.com>; rel="blocked-by" There are some reasons why you wouldn't use a Link header for some things, especially if a recipient needed to be able to parse it out very efficiently, and there might be many other Link headers present. I don't think that this is one of those cases, though. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2015 06:53:43 UTC