- From: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:35:27 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>, uri@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Mark Nottingham<mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > The first draft of Link (or two) contained Link-Templates, just as you > outline. I didn't have much confidence URI templates at the time; the > difference in maturity between them and the Link header was considerable. > > I think the right thing to do here is to continue working on them > separately; while they could live in the same document, there isn't a > pressing need to, and combining them puts Link at risk (both in terms of > schedule as well as getting through the process). Agreed, they can and should exist as separate documents. Thanks, -joe > > To answer your last question -- yes, I'm very interested in doing so. I > think we need to see a Templates draft from Roy first, though. > > Cheers, > > > On 11/06/2009, at 5:02 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> is there any ongoing activity to combine the Link header and URI >> templates? >> >> IMHO it is not a solution to allow URI templates to occur in place of URIs >> since that would make it necessary to check for *all* URIs whether they are >> a template. Instead, a dedicated header (Link-Template) would be needed to >> enable such use of URI templates. >> >> Is there any significant interest or activity in standardizing such a >> header (or a similar solution)? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jan >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 17:36:03 UTC