Re: Link: relation registry and 303

On 31/01/2009, at 3:59 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> So... lets just leave the registered relation names as absolute  
> URIRefs, and lets please continue to take the view that the things  
> those registered and "non-registered" full URIRefs denote are link  
> relations rather than there describing documents - and lets just  
> concede (if we have to) that as a source of information about the  
> link-relation that description document is more to be believed than  
> what might be inferred from a 200 or 303 response code.
> But... please lets not jump through some twisted hoops that have  
> some of the link rel names being URI (albeit relative URI) and  
> others not... and please, if we mean the URI to denote link  
> relations lets say that that's what they denote when we describe  
> them - in the long run I think that would make life much simpler for  
> someone 5-10years down the road wondering what planet we were on.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that registered vs. non- 
registered be split to solve this problem; rather, it was something  
already in the works, primarily based upon feedback from the HTML5  

They were concerned that, historically, link relations have been  
compared in a case-insensitive fashion, which makes working with URIs  
much more complex. Bifurcating it neatly solves this problem.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 22:26:24 UTC