Re: assuming HTTP Link will get ratified?

On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:52 +0100, Phil Archer wrote:
> Other interested folk added to cc line.
> Dan,
> Sorry it's taken me a week to reply to this. I need to probe a little 
> deeper.

Has it been a week already? Wow...

> I wonder what evidence for implementation is required? Through Mod 
> headers, Apache allows you to set a Link header and Microsoft's IIS has 
> its own way of letting you do that too. Rightly or wrongly, I've been 
> advising people that this is the most efficient way of adding a link for 
> some time [1].
> As an example of a widespread implementation, Perl's LWP module makes no 
> distinction between a link/rel defined in HTML or HTTP Headers. See, for 
> example, [2]. This is the ICRA label test result for an adult site that 
> has configured its servers to include the link as an HTTP response 
> header, processed using LWP.
> As for demand, your link to the GRDDL shows that POWDER is not alone in 
> wanting this. Other documents discussing this are linked to from the 
> POWDER doc (from Mark Nottingham and Tim BL) [3].
> Is that sufficient demand and implementation experience to either get 
> this added as an issue in the HTTP draft or for Mark's draft to be 
> resurrected?

It looks like enough to me, but the only way to know for sure is to 
ask them.

>  If not, I would be very grateful for more specific advice 
> on what else has to be done.

I think putting Link on the HTTP WG issues list is more trouble
than it's worth. There's an HTTP header registry, so the Link
header can be ratified independent of all the other HTTP issues
under investigation.

I suggest you ask Mark to re-issue his draft; include the background
above when you do.

He seems inclined to work on it...

From: Mark Nottingham <>
Date: 15 October 2007 4:07:43 PM
To: " Group" <>
Subject: Re: Link Header draft

Dan Connolly, W3C
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 22:09:55 UTC