- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 00:55:47 -0500
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Atom Syntax" <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
OK. If in a link header, do you imagine that relative URI for the target would be acceptable? -Alan On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > That's true, but it's an example, not a specification; furthermore, the head > section is shown complete (i.e., there is a close tag) without a base > element... > > It's important to differentiate between relative references in the relation > type (e..g, rel) and the target URI. The text about not using in-document > base URIs only applies to the relation type, not the target URI. > > Cheers, > > > On 01/12/2008, at 2:19 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> >> Hello Mark, >> >> One minor comment concerning the conversion the profile to link. In >> that example, a relative URI is used as the target of the link. >> Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't the html document in which the >> original link was embedded have had an explicit <base> element? >> Elsewhere you point out that the document <base> elements can't be >> used to resolve relative URIs in Link headers. Therefore in some cases >> the example, if copied literally, would lead to errors. >> >> -Alan >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> >>> This is a fairly substantial rewrite of the spec, based upon the >>> observation >>> that the link header really isn't the central concept here; it's link >>> relations themselves. >>> >>> Changelog: >>> >>> o Inverted focus from Link headers to link relations. >>> o Specified was a link relation type is. >>> o Based on discussion, re-added 'rev'. >>> o Changed IESG Approval to IETF Consensus for relation registrations >>> (i.e., require a document). >>> o Updated RFC2434 reference to RFC5226. >>> o Registered relations SHOULD conform to sgml-name. >>> o Cautioned against confusing relation types with media types. >>> >>> I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding registration >>> requirements, >>> as I think that's the biggest remaining sticking point. Note that it was >>> previously "IESG Approval"; I've changed it to "IETF Review" (nee "IETF >>> Consensus") so that a document is required. Also, I believe this still >>> accommodates other standards orgs (like the W3C) using their processes to >>> publish documents that register entries, just as with media types. >>> >>> Assuming this is acceptable and no serious shortcomings are found in this >>> draft, I think this document is ready to progress; i.e., I believe >>> (speaking >>> as an individual) there is consensus within the Atom community to make >>> the >>> registry modifications, and the feedback I've heard from the HTML >>> community >>> is that it's not necessary to have a tight integration with HTML4 or >>> HTML5. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org> >>>> Date: 1 December 2008 12:03:54 PM >>>> To: mnot@mnot.net >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for >>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03 >>>> >>>> >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt has been >>>> successfuly submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the IETF >>>> repository. >>>> >>>> Filename: draft-nottingham-http-link-header >>>> Revision: 03 >>>> Title: Link Relations and HTTP Header Linking >>>> Creation_date: 2008-12-01 >>>> WG ID: Independent Submission >>>> Number_of_pages: 15 >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> This document specifies relation types for Web links, and defines a >>>> registry for them. It also defines how to send such links in HTTP >>>> headers with the Link header-field. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The IETF Secretariat. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > >
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 05:57:30 UTC