- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <list@asbjorn.ulsberg.no>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:50:47 +0100
- To: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "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>
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:50:09 +0100, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> wrote: > Case sensitivity is an issue. Hmmm... can 04 say that tokens given as > rel types SHOULD be lower case and that UAs SHOULD treat such tokens as > case insensitive? Would that put too much of a strain on saying that > tokens are treated as relative URIs? (I know that paths are case > sensitive). Is perhaps RFC 4287's definition of atom:id a good starting place for defining how this token should be created, matched, etc.? <http://www.atompub.org/rfc4287.html#element.id> > There shouldn't be any need for UAs to resolve tokens given as values > for @rel as absolute URIs and no one's suggesting that UAs should > actually make an HTTP request of any kind to iana.org every time there's > a link to a stylesheet. It's the person minting the new relationship > type that needs to check. What it means is that if you create a link > (HTML or HTTP) and use a @rel type 'foo' that gives a 404 from > http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/foo then you really shouldn't > expect UAs to do anything sensible with it. I think this is basically the same old "should a URI be resolvable" discussion we've been having for years, especially wrt XML namespaces and as mentioned; the atom:id element. > Whether a UA chooses to actually implement support for a registered @rel > type remains very much up to the UA developer of course. Entirely up to, imho. -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@ulsberg.no «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Friday, 2 January 2009 06:51:32 UTC