- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:20:49 -0500
- To: "Roy T.Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Roy T.Fielding wrote: > > As far as I am concerned, link references in Web architecture consist > of URIs and relative URIs. Not CURIEs and not IRIs. Some data formats > will have intermediate forms for presentation and ease of data entry, > such > as IRIs or CURIEs, but those forms will not appear in HTTP envelopes > and header fields because they are neither portable nor understandable > outside of their own small context. > > Under no circumstances does (X)HTML(*) define any aspect of links > for the World Wide Web other than the format of data entry within their > own media types. FWIW I agree with you. This only came up because the Link: header proposal had some short relationship names in it. If the Link: header rel values can have short names, then they should map directly to URIs (for sem web purposes). All we were saying is that we have such URIs already at http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# and Link: resolution could use those. It could also use others - I don't mind. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 27 September 2008 21:21:32 UTC