- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:59:50 -0700
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, iesg@ietf.org, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
... and it's in the editing phase still because I haven't yet received much in the way of critical review, even though it proposes some non- trivial changes. I'll solicit reviews one more time, and if that goes well, will issue a revision and ask for publication; that may draw more useful feedback out of the woodwork. Cheers, On 22/04/2008, at 9:25 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > 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/ >> >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 17:00:32 UTC