- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:21:07 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 2013-12-11 19:59, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Wednesday, December 11, 2013, Julian Reschke wrote: > > On 2013-12-11 13:13, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013, at 14:48, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > Would any potential implementer consider supporting a HTTP > based solution > to loading manifests? > > > It seems quite premature to discuss a HTTP based solution to > advertise a > manifest. Even if it happens to be something developers ask for, > we will > anyway need to provide a <link> solution. It seems that the best > course > of actions we could take here is to implement the manifest > feature using > <link> and gather developer feedback to evaluate that alternative. > > > If you define a way using <link>, the alternative approach using the > Link: header field essentially comes for free. > > > Mark seems to imply otherwise: for example, Mark says that "[Link:] was > never specified to be used with the "stylesheet" relation". > > https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/98#issuecomment-30293586 I see the comment but I have no idea what he's talking about. The spec is generic; and the IANA registry (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml>) has a "stylesheet" entry. Firefox implements this for CSS and XSLT, Opera (classic) did for CSS. > If that's the case, then neither would manifest? I also thought > Link: was more or less generic. I should read the spec in detail. It's totally generic. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 19:21:37 UTC