W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-124: rel-limits - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:11:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1102282020380.1298@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
> This is a general problem when relations for specific links can be added 
> in multiple places; it's not limited to <link> but would also apply to 
> the Link: HTTP response header field.

The processing for <link> as far as I am aware is fully defined for all 
these cases.

The processing for Link: is not, despite my feedback requesting such 
during the development of the current spec for Link:. That, however, is 
currently outside of the scope of this working group.

The point that is being made here is that your CP introduces the problem 
anew in HTML. If the chairs adopt the proposal as written, I would expect 
to subsequently file bugs to fix the proposal to actually be well-defined 
again. (Since I do not think that the proposal is an improvement to the 
Web, however, I have not spent the time to work out how one would go about 
doing that yet.)

> It's also not specific, it would apply to any new relation that affects 
> the request being made (like suppressing cookies...).

What precisely the requirements are will likely differ based on the exact 
link types in question.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 21:12:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:09 UTC