Re: XRD <uri> vs. Link: anchor=

[Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>]

(Removing cc: mnot and Ben, who didn't ask to be included, so as not
to spam them... maybe I'll touch base with them separately)

Sorry I got mixed up, but:

You have a URI U, do GET U, receive 302 or 307 Location: V Link: W.
You may want to put information about U in resource W.  (U and V do
not name the same resource, i.e. different properties may apply to the
two.)

Jonathan

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> But, if you have an XRD use case for 'anchor' please let us know.
>
> EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Rees [mailto:jar@creativecommons.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:11 AM
>> To: xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> Cc: Mark Nottingham; Ben Adida
>> Subject: XRD <uri> vs. Link: anchor=
>>
>> [ bcc: www-tag  for the TAG's information.  To broaden the discussion
>> beyond XRD change the cc: list as appropriate. ]
>>
>> XRD <uri> seems to do exactly what the Link: header's anchor= parameter
>> does [1]. It would be nice if the two used the same token to communicate
>> this function.  As <uri> is not descriptive of the role played by the URI, I
>> recommend updating XRD to match Link:, by renaming the <uri> element (or
>> attribute, should you go that route) to be <anchor>.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> [1] http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
>>
>> (p.s. I wonder if HTML5's <link> element should have an 'anchor'
>> attribute, for symmetry ...)
>