- From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:58:36 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, www-tag@w3.org
tor 2008-03-20 klockan 17:18 +0000 skrev Phil Archer: > There's a lot of crossover going on here... the discussion about > relationship types has played out extensively on the IETF/HTTP WG list. > See, for example, Julian Reschke's comment [1]. > > Mark's original proposal was to use Link-Profile to make the > relationship type extensible which seems sensible at first pass, but... > > Link: <file.ext1>; rel="rel-1" > Link: <file.ext2>; rel="rel-2" > Link-Profile: <profile.html> Wow, talk about overkill. Prefixes are great if you have a file with tens or hundreds of occurrences of a URI. For a handful, which is all we expect to have in a HTTP header, right (RIGHT??), prefixing is completely overkill, IMHO. That said, having a default prefix *does* make sense, because that does not introduce any new HTTP header mechanism. Just my 0.02 kronor. /Mikael > > Does the profile define the first or second relationship type, or both? > > Link-Prefix would have the same problem but there may be a way through. > > Could IANA be the default Link-Prefix? So if that header is absent, OK, > you know that any relative URI is relative to the IANA namespace. > > If supplied, then the prefix URI MUST apply to ALL relationship types, > even if using one from the IANA namespace - and whatever the namespace > is should use something like owl:sameAs to map from its own terms to the > IANA ones - seems a bit wasteful. > > Alternatively, we could, perhaps have an id for each Link, something like > > Link: <file.ext1>; rel="rel-1"; id="a"; > Link: <file.ext2>; rel="rel-2"; id="b"; > Link: <my.css>; rel="stylehseet"; id="c"; > Link-Profile: <profile.namespace> for="a b"; > > (i.e. the Profile header would take a space separated list of > identifiers for the link headers to which it applied. Again, the > un-qualified relationship type (header c) is from the IANA namespace. > > Phil. > > > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JanMar/0468.html > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > Having the link types be URIs will be a great help in solving a number > > of issues we've been dealing with around associating metadata with > > resources. > > > > I have one suggestion for the document - rather than having the > > link-extensions, with the default (i.e. not necessarily stated in the > > headers) base of > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations.html I would instead > > either leave that mechanism out, or add something like a Link-Prefix: > > header that allows one to set a prefix in the way one does for > > namespaces or RDF serializations. > > > > Ideally the IANA registry would be served as RDF (perhaps by conneg). In > > this way, resolution and discovery of relations could be uniform. An > > agent wishing to discover what > > > > Link-Prefix: "", "http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations#" > > Link: <http://www.cern.ch/TheBook/chapter2>; rel="Previous" > > > > Would do exactly the same thing as working with: > > > > Link-Prefix: "dc:", "http://purl.org/dc/terms/" > > Link: <http://mumble.net/~alanr/ThePersonAlanRuttenberg>; rel="dc:creator" > > > > Regards, > > Alan > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > >> > >> See referenced I-D for a rough idea of what I've been kicking around > >> WRT the Link header with a few people. > >> > >> Note that while it resolves the relation mess, it still has to get > >> some buy-in by both the HTML and Atom communities, as it asks some > >> non-trivial things of them. > >> > >> Also, this draft is still rough, with some outstanding issues already > >> identified. See discussion on the ietf-http-wg list. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> [ note: I've deleted the MIME attachment, because the last time I > >> forwarded this message, it appeared to crash Mail.app instances that > >> received it. Oops. ] > >> > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > >>> Date: 18 March 2008 5:30:01 AM > >>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > >>> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt > >>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > >>> > >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >>> directories. > >>> > >>> > >>> Title : HTTP Header Linking > >>> Author(s) : M. Nottingham > >>> Filename : draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt > >>> Pages : 13 > >>> Date : 2008-3-17 > >>> > >>> This document clarifies the status of the Link HTTP header and > >>> attempts to consolidate link relations in a single registry. > >>> > >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt > >>> > >>> > >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >>> > >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > >>> Internet-Draft. > >>> ______________________ > >>> I-D-Announce mailing list > >>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- <mikael@nilsson.name> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 17:59:40 UTC