Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

That's true, but it's an example, not a specification; furthermore,  
the head section is shown complete (i.e., there is a close tag)  
without a base element...

It's important to differentiate between relative references in the  
relation type (e..g, rel) and the target URI. The text about not using  
in-document base URIs only applies to the relation type, not the  
target URI.


On 01/12/2008, at 2:19 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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 <>  
> 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 <>
>>> Date: 1 December 2008 12:03:54 PM
>>> To:
>>> 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

Mark Nottingham

Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 05:32:39 UTC