- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:38:40 +1100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
BTW, I came at this from a very different angle -- trying to resolve the conflicts in how HTML and Atom use links in the least intrusive way. The Profile mechanism failed that test -- it didn't have the range of flexibility that Atom links have, and would make some uses very difficult -- if not impossible -- to deploy. When that's out of the picture, there are a few other decisions, but only a few. There are certainly other ways to a solution for a particular application, but my work pre-supposes that you'll be using HTTP, and that you want to work with the linking models already existent in HTML and Atom. Cheers, On 21/03/2008, at 1:46 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > The alternatives are surveyed in the bibliographic wiki page http://esw.w3.org/topic/FindingResourceDescriptions > that I referred you to earlier, and include alternative headers > (other than Link:), alternative HTTP methods (other than GET and > HEAD), and alternative protocols (other than HTTP). I have just > reorganized the page a bit to make these choices easier to see. I > have not prepared a summary of the whole area. I (agreeing with at > least one other TAG member) thought it would be a better investment > to spend time on use cases, so that we can figure out what problems > we're trying to solve and establish criteria for deciding which > proposal solves them best. > > Jonathan > > On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> What are the alternate solutions? >> >> On 20/03/2008, at 12:15 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> >>> Thanks Mark. This looks quite good, and the use of URIrefs for >>> relationships, rather than tokens from an ad hoc vocabulary, >>> addresses one of the concerns that came up at a recent TAG meeting. >>> >>> What this needs (as far as my effort is concerned) is arguments >>> against alternative solutions. Use cases could go a long way in >>> providing these. I expect these have already been part of your >>> discussion. Pointers to the relevant discussion on ietf-http-wg >>> would be helpful, as I'm having difficulty locating it. >>> >>> Jonathan -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 21:39:26 UTC