I figure it is unlikely most of you are tracking the HTTP activity.
This is of particular interest since they are doing things with a "rel"
value registry for the link header.
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Forwarded message 1
See:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04.txt
Diffs at:
http://tinyurl.com/clewkp
Changelog:
o Defined context as a resource, rather than a representation.
o Removed concept of link directionality; relegated to a deprecated
Link header extension.
o Relation types split into registered (non-URI) and extension
(URI).
o Changed wording around finding URIs for registered relation
types.
o Changed target and context URIs to IRIs (but not extension
relation types).
o Add RFC2231 encoding for title parameter, explicit BNF for
title*.
o Add i18n considerations.
o Specify how to compare relation types.
o Changed registration procedure to Designated Expert.
o Softened language around presence of relations in the registry.
o Added describedby relation.
o Re-added 'anchor' parameter, along with security consideration
for
third-party anchors.
o Softened language around HTML4 attributes that aren't directly
accommodated.
o Various tweaks to abstract, introduction and examples.
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/