- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:31:55 +1100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Atom Syntax" <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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. Cheers, 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 <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/ >> >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 05:32:39 UTC