- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:35:08 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
On Feb 8, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Stuart, > > On 7 Feb 2008, at 14:59, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: >>> There seem to be two issues worth discussing here: >>> >>> 1. The perceived need for a generic "metadata channel" in HTTP, > > Regarding this issue, a lot of motivating use cases and points of > pain have now been shown elsewhere in the thread, and I was wrong > to dismiss it. > > I still prefer > > Link: <foo>;rel=meta Just found this: http://esw.w3.org/topic/LinkHeader which is a wiki page written by TimBL, with edits by Roy Fielding, dated last December. The page points to the POWDER suggestion to use Link:, among other things. I'm accumulating the links from this discussion and others that I'm tracking down on a wiki page, http://esw.w3.org/topic/ FindingResourceDescriptions . Best Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 20:35:49 UTC