- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:19 -0500
- To: public-powderwg@w3.org
I read... "This section makes two key assumptions that, at present, may be regarded as unsafe. That the HTTP Link header, defined in RFC 2616 and still in the registry but dropped from later RFCs, will be reinstated through the new draft." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-powder-dr-20070925/#assoc You're clearly aware of the current draft of HTTP, since you link directly to it... http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.html That draft has no Link header and no open issue regarding the link header. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to believe that spec will include the Link header. Something like mnot's draft seems more likely... http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-00.txt If you need the Link header ratified, you should put energy into making that happen: convince implementors to implement it, make noise about implementors that have implemented it, get somebody to re-issue that draft in the IETF, etc. See also... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/issues#issue-http-header-links -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 16:30:52 UTC