- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:25:49 -0700
- To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Cc: iesg@ietf.org, mnot@mnot.net, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <59EAB585-CC9F-46D0-8DCA-FFF8C11C4425@osafoundation.org>
Hi Phil, Thanks for the input and keeping us in the loop on the POWDER WG and plans for DRs and PICS, that's good to know. FYI, the link-header draft is still in editing phase, and Mark has not requested publication yet -- so the IESG has not yet been officially called on to take any action on this document, let alone approve as an RFC. Still, early input can be useful so I don't intend this information to deter such input. You might also provide this input to the HTTP WG, because getting WG consensus around such a document is always better for getting it approved as a standards track RFC, implemented and deployed. I tend to agree that the Link header work will be quite useful for HTTP extensions and connections to non-HTTP functionality as well, which makes it all the more important to get this done right and quickly. Regards, Lisa On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Phil Archer wrote: > Dear IESG members, > > I'm writing on behalf of the POWDER Working Group at W3C [1] to > support the draft submitted by Mark Nottingham, dated 14 March 2008 > [2]. The WG would like to see this become an RFC. > > The use case we have for the HTTP Link header is set out in an e- > mail sent to the W3C TAG mailing list [3] which quotes from and > builds directly on our use cases document [4]. In essence, the > Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) is designed to > facilitate greater personalisation of Internet content through the > provision of metadata that can be created separately from the > multiple resources it describes and that can be authenticated. > > A typical use case would be whether or not to include links to other > resources on a page delivered to a mobile device, whether to > recommend certain resources for school study and so on. In each > case, the ability to find the metadata without having to parse the > relevant resource offers a substantial optimisation in processing. > > HTTP Link, as set our by Mark Nottingham, achieves this. A HEAD > request to a given resource would be sufficient to identify the > location of any Description Resources that may be available. > Moreover, for some resource types, it offers the only practical way > to provide the link to the Description Resource. > > The POWDER WG intends to submit a proposal for at least one > relationship type to be used in HTTP Link Headers. > > The relevant section of our Recommendation Track documentation is at > [5]. > > Incidentally, if we are successful in reaching full Recommendation > status, it is likely that PICS [6] will be withdrawn. It would be > appropriate in that case to withdraw the PICS HTTP Header too. > > Yours faithfully > > Phil Archer > POWDER WG Chair. > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/ > [2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0114.html > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-use-cases/ > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20080317/#assoc > [6] http://www.w3.org/PICS/ > > > -- > Phil Archer > Chief Technical Officer, > Family Online Safety Institute > w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/ > > >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 16:26:39 UTC