- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:54:18 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Michael K. Bergman" <mike@mkbergman.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >> >> Stuart, >> >> Hold on. Let's go one step at a time. >> >> We agree that there are legacy data, yes? Let's make its URI x, >> whose owner is Joe. >> Case 1. Joe is lazy. >> Then, no LINK, no Conneg. Is this fair? > > Not really. The site owner (who may be != Joe) could configure the > server to return a Link header, without having to touch the resource > itself. Julian, think more. If there is no new information, what would the site owner configures it for? If there is new information, configure Conneg (Accept) takes the same effort to configure LINK. Neither Conneg nor LINK touched the original resource. I think Pat has articulated for my viewpoint very well. Our difference resides in our different viewpoint toward the architecture of the web. Our arguments can be either endless or none at all - depending if we start from one basic model. Don't you agree? Xiaoshu
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 10:55:04 UTC