- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:11:01 -0700
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2015 02:11:49 UTC
Sounds like a winner to me. I’ll do another draft. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > -------- > In message <818CC92A-A4B9-496A-8ACE-23F0DFC5BDDD@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. > > I know. You asked for compelling reasons *not* to use Link and I > gave you the most (but not very) compelling reason not to do so. :-) > > I fully agree, we should just use Link for the 451 reason/authority URI > > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > -- - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray)
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2015 02:11:49 UTC