W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2009

Re: LRDD Update (Resource Descriptor Discovery) and Proposed Changes

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:16:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4A440563.90101@musc.edu>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
CC: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> (LRDD and /host-meta were previously discussed on www-talk@w3.org. Moving forward, this discussion is being relocated to the IETF Application area discussion list. This will be indicated in future drafts.)
> - A quick (re)introduction
> I am working on a proposal called LRDD [1] which attempts to define how a descriptor (metadata, information about, etc.) can be attached or associated with a resource. LRDD, which stands for Link-based Resource Description Discovery (and pronounced 'lard') uses the Link Relation framework proposed by the Link Header draft [2]. LRDD does not define the document format of the descriptor itself, just how to obtain it if the URI of the resource is known. Existing descriptor formats include XRDS, XRD, POWDER, Metalink, etc.
> As previously proposed, LRDD includes three methods for linking a resource (identified by a URI) to another resource which describes it:
> 1. HTTP Link: header
> 2. <LINK> element where supported (HTML, XTHML, ATOM)
> 3. Link-Pattern: records [3] in the proposed /host-meta well-known-location document [4]
In AWWW, there is the principle of orthogonal specification.  In 
practice, there is this DRY principle.

Now, given one information, you are proposing three mechanisms to 
specify it.  Isn't it obvious that something is *fundamentally* wrong 
about the proposal?

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 23:17:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:29 UTC