W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:15:25 +0200
Message-Id: <3AF44A8F-E1A6-4297-BB0F-1EEE0FF3D458@gbiv.com>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: wangxiao@musc.edu

On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> "Honestly, after I read the Nottingham's draft, I dislike it even  
> more.   The LINK header is essentially a "cute" way to move some of  
> the RDF assertions into the HTTP headers. If you exam the proposed  
> Link header more closely, they are more or less the Dublin Core.   
> What it will lead to is what you described as "transclude" all URIs  
> into the headers.  It is very dangerous and very bad.  Consider the  
> copyright LINK. If the content carries a copyright statement, which  
> is different from the LINK's copyright?  Which one is the right one?".

FTR, that is complete nonsense.  Link was defined in 1992.  It is  
already an
HTTP header field.  It's purpose is to define typed links from one  
to another resource, particularly when the representation is not  
It is one of the key components of the Web architecture that was left  
out of
RFC 2616 because the editor was in a rush to move to Draft Standard  
not because we had any intention to remove the field from HTTP.

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 21:16:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:21 UTC