- From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:06:36 +0000
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- CC: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On 07/02/2007 22:38, Harry Halpin wrote:
> In your original proposal you recommended us using the link header
> [1], and in your draft spec you use both profile and link headers[2].
> I'm a bit concerned because you said link header existed in HTTP RFC
> 2608 [3] but was deprecated in 2616 [4]. First, where exactly is the
> text for the link header in RFC 2608 [3]? I can't find it.
It's in section 19.6.2.4
>
> Why was in deprecated?
>
I don't know. Perhaps someone who was there at the time can answer. Mark
Nottingham says the following in his I-D[1]:
A means of indicating the relationships between documents on the Web
has been available for some time in HTML, and was considered as a
HTTP header in [RFC2068], but removed from [RFC2616], due to a lack
of implementation experience.
> And lastly, why use both "link" and "profile" headers if just a "link"
> header will do? We've just decided to go ahead with the profile header,
> but if I'm going to be dealing with the IETF I want more background on
> why you made that choice.
The Profile header is required in the same way that the profile
attribute in HTML is required - to licence the interpretation of
rel="transformation"
It's also specified in Mark's I-D
>
> thanks!
No problem. Wish I could have been on the call today.
Ian
[1] http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-00.txt
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 23:06:52 UTC