- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:40:23 +1000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, public-powderwg@w3.org, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
The best way to get this moving is to get discussion going on the list; as a consensus emerges, other people will either have to offer up objections / alternatives, or get out of the way. What's stopping it now is inertia... Cheers, On 2007/10/16, at 8:10 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > 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. > http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html > > 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 <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> > Date: 15 October 2007 4:07:43 PM > To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Link Header draft > Archived-At: > <http://www.w3.org/mid/56B4E43D-B4FA-4C13-A0A0-6807C3C76631@yahoo- > inc.com> > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 22:42:29 UTC