- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:51:53 +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: >>> 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. > > Well, I gave an example (associating a CSS stylesheet with legacy HTML). Bind the CSS stylesheet and HTML to the same URI. Given the stylesheet a MIME type? > >> Neither Conneg nor LINK touched the original resource. >> ... > > Again, how would you want to do that through content negotiation? > > I'm not saying that the Link header is the right solution to every > problem. But that doesn't mean it's useless. Can we agree on that? > > BR, Julian > >
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 17:52:41 UTC