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

Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt

From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:34:36 +0100
Message-ID: <52F3779C55F84E6098FEF2B2F2D2E429@kmPC>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JanMar/0168.html
> But that's the whole point.  Your specific example of
>> We are an author of resource A and we want to have a link between resources A and B. (We cannot or don't want to alter B or headers served with it.) To say that B is A's next, use rel and next. To say that B is A's prev, use rel and prev. To say A is B's next, use rev and next. To say A is B's prev, use rev and prev. The latter two (whose characteristic is that B is the starting resource) would be unavailable with the other interpretation of rev.
> is inherently false -- one cannot create a link from B to A
> on the Web with a Link header field on A.  The Web does not allow
> such a feature to exist because it will not scale and is not
> supported by the natural authority-relationship of DNS delegation.
I'm… confused. (Especially having also read [1] and related TimBL's writings.) Of course a link expressed not at its source isn't directly suitable for traversal, so it's usually not a hyperlink (but those don't dominate among the use cases for this I-D anyway). (Sometimes it could be automatically turned into one. E.g. a browser could understand that if A is B's prev then B is A's next and navigate to B when a user requests the "go to next" function in the chrome. Or it could detect that B is rendered in another browsing context and on recognizing the link from B to A expressed in or along A (or even some C) update that rendering accordingly. I don't know, maybe HyTime, which informed XLink, has such features. That's something currently missing from the Web and I agree that the demand for it seems low (but see [2] (I vaguely recall seeing it in some requirements of planned features document; now I can only find this draft)).) But are you suggesting that decoupling expression of links (of any type, not just hyperlinks) from their participating resources and their roles is contrary to Web architecture? What about XLink, linkbases (whether using XLink or something else), RDF stuff (thanks for mentioning it - a triple may indeed be viewed as a link), SMIL [3]?

Larry, has the TAG ever discussed this?

Best regards,

Krzysztof Maczyński

[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Topology
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/extendedlinks
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL3/smil-extended-linking#SMILLinking-ObjectLinking
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 13:35:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC