W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: <meta http-equiv="Link"> question

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:13:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4C60EE11.8010704@gmx.de>
To: sroussey@network54.com
CC: Steven Roussey <sroussey@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On 09.08.2010 23:52, Steven Roussey wrote:
>> Why would it be for HTTP/1.0 only?
> Because between RFC2068 (1.0) and RFC2616 (1.1), it was removed from
> the spec. I think the HTML 4.01 spec makes a reference to it (which
> was different from the HTML 4.0 spec).
> Merely curious...
> ...

HTTP/1.0 is RFC 1945. RFC 2068 is the proposed standard of HTTP/1.1, and 
it was not included in the draft standard (RFC 2616) because (I think) 
of concerns that it wasn't implemented back then.

If you look at the IANA header registry you will notice that it 
continues to be a registered header, and that there is no distinction 
between headers for HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1.

That being said, a new spec for the Link header field has been approved 
a few months ago 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10) and 
should be published as RFC very soon now.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 06:14:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 August 2010 06:14:27 GMT