- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:05:56 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Jun 13, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Jun 13, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > >> At the TAG face-to-face meeting in Bristol on 20 May 2008, the TAG >> took up the issue of the appropriate use (if any) of the HTTP >> Link: response header, with consideration of design alternatives >> and issues as summarized in [2]. After a lively discussion, we >> agreed as follows: >> >> "The TAG endorses http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http- >> link-header-01.txt and standardization of the HTTP Link: header >> for use cases such as POWDER and metadata about fixed resources, >> and GRDDL transformation links" > > Why mention of "fixed resources" specifically? Is this meant to > supply that responses to requests about "generic resources" should > not use link headers? > > -Alan Dan C gave the advice not to endorse technology for technology's sake, and suggested a few specific applications as for-instances. This idea met with general approval. Although I can't speak for others, I did not take the statement as particularly restrictive - thus the "such as". The mention of "fixed resources" (perhaps from Tim?) I think was designed to indicate a relatively uncontroversial case and did not mean to say other kinds of things couldn't have Link:s. Perhaps it was simply meant to bypass any discussion of the resource/representation distinction or instability through time, things no one wanted to talk about as we had handled the request from the POWDER WG and had other matters to get to. I imagine there will be further discussions here about what kinds of discipline on Link: will be helpful, especially around resource descriptions (metadata) for consumption by semantic web applications. Jonathan
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 16:06:35 UTC