Solving #issue-http-header-links

  For our next telecon, I really would like it if IanD (or if he can't,
can he tell us he can't and will anyone else pick this action up?) would
produce for us the following in order to close #issue-http-header-links 
[1] so we can move to Last Call:

1) A brief paragraph that details a use-case or edits an existing
Use-case to add in the rationale for this feature, which DanC hints at
in his post [2]. It does not need to be long, just concise and clearly
describing the rationale. Note that GRDDL implementers would then have
to implement this feature in their GRDDL implementations, and a test
case should be made.

2)  A brief yet complete description of technically how this would work,
in particular an elaboration of Ian's second option of using the "Link
header" in [3], which the WG seemed to favor over the first option of
inventing a new "GRDDL Transformation" header at our last telecon.

If we can't get this together soon, I will rule this issue either
out-of-scope or postponed indefinitely and it will not be part of Last
Call. However, if someone can bring this together note that it is fine
for us to use HTTP Headers, and I will take on responsibility for
communicating this to the IETF Header Registry.

However, it needs to be done *soon* - i.e. before our next telecon, or
Ian needs to tell us he can't do it before our next telecon.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-http-header-links
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0088.html
[3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jan/0087.html

-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 03:38:03 UTC