- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:11:34 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-09-21 03:39, Sam Ruby wrote: > 'potential conflict between Link: and <link> semantics' > > Per the decision policy, at this time the chairs would like to solicit > volunteers to write Change Proposals. > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/174 > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation > > If no Change Proposals are written by October 21st, 2011 this issue will > be closed without prejudice. > > Issue status link: > http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-174 > > - Sam Ruby > ... SUMMARY The decision on ISSUE-27 [1] has resulted in a situation where the semantics of link relations may depend on where they appear in (Link: HTTP header field vs HTML content). This should be clarified. RATIONALE [2] states: "HTTP Link: headers, if supported, must be assumed to come before any links in the document, in the order that they were given in the HTTP entity header. (URLs in these headers are to be processed and resolved according to the rules given in the relevant specification; the rules of this specification don't apply.) [HTTP] [WEBLINK]" This is not as clear as it should, as, for some reason, it talks about the "URLS in these headers", as opposed to header field values in general (which also include the link relation). DETAILS Replace the paragraph cited above by: "HTTP Link: header fields, if supported, must be assumed to come before any links in the document, in the order that they were given in the HTTP message. These header fields are to be processed according to the rules given in the relevant specifications. [HTTP] [WEBLINK] Note: registration of relation types in HTTP Link: header fields is distinct from HTML5 link types, and thus their semantics can be different from same-named HTML5 types." (where "HTML5 link types" could link to <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#linkTypes>) IMPACT 1. Positive Effects Clarifies the impact of the resolution of ISSUE-27 with respect to potential relation name conflicts. 2. Negative Effects None. 3. Conformance Classes Changes None. 4. Risks None. REFERENCES [1] <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27> [2] <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-link-element>
Received on Sunday, 16 October 2011 19:12:13 UTC