- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:19:38 -0500
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Atom Syntax" <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Hello Mark, One minor comment concerning the conversion the profile to link. In that example, a relative URI is used as the target of the link. Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't the html document in which the original link was embedded have had an explicit <base> element? Elsewhere you point out that the document <base> elements can't be used to resolve relative URIs in Link headers. Therefore in some cases the example, if copied literally, would lead to errors. -Alan On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > This is a fairly substantial rewrite of the spec, based upon the observation > that the link header really isn't the central concept here; it's link > relations themselves. > > Changelog: > > o Inverted focus from Link headers to link relations. > o Specified was a link relation type is. > o Based on discussion, re-added 'rev'. > o Changed IESG Approval to IETF Consensus for relation registrations > (i.e., require a document). > o Updated RFC2434 reference to RFC5226. > o Registered relations SHOULD conform to sgml-name. > o Cautioned against confusing relation types with media types. > > I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding registration requirements, > as I think that's the biggest remaining sticking point. Note that it was > previously "IESG Approval"; I've changed it to "IETF Review" (nee "IETF > Consensus") so that a document is required. Also, I believe this still > accommodates other standards orgs (like the W3C) using their processes to > publish documents that register entries, just as with media types. > > Assuming this is acceptable and no serious shortcomings are found in this > draft, I think this document is ready to progress; i.e., I believe (speaking > as an individual) there is consensus within the Atom community to make the > registry modifications, and the feedback I've heard from the HTML community > is that it's not necessary to have a tight integration with HTML4 or HTML5. > > Regards, > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org> >> Date: 1 December 2008 12:03:54 PM >> To: mnot@mnot.net >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03 >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt has been >> successfuly submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the IETF repository. >> >> Filename: draft-nottingham-http-link-header >> Revision: 03 >> Title: Link Relations and HTTP Header Linking >> Creation_date: 2008-12-01 >> WG ID: Independent Submission >> Number_of_pages: 15 >> >> Abstract: >> This document specifies relation types for Web links, and defines a >> registry for them. It also defines how to send such links in HTTP >> headers with the Link header-field. >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat. >> >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > >
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 03:20:14 UTC