[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] Version Control Commit by blade
okay, this all makes sense I guess. If we *are* going to allow for relative URIs for <Rel>, which I agree there is a lot of value there, then the added paragraph referencing Link-Header should indeed be present in Section 2.5.1. Let's just repeat it in the extensibility section. will On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Will Norris [mailto:will@willnorris.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:57 AM > >> Now that's really interesting... I hadn't considered "describedby" to >> be a valid value for <Rel>. I'm actually not too fond of that, and >> am >> now wondering if we *should* in fact mandate an absolute URI here. > > No. The whole point is to borrow as much as possible from current > practices in HTML, XHTML, ATOM, and HTTP Link:. That's what the link > spec is trying to do. To go and exclude the most useful relation > types (that is why they have a short name after all) is > counterproductive. > >>> I think it is important to point out to developers that if they want >>> to create new relation types, they should consult the link spec for >>> directions and guidelines on when to mint a short name and when a >>> URI extension. >> >> >> Fair enough. Perhaps move this paragraph to the extensibility >> section >> of the spec then? > > I would mention it in both. One for explaining the syntax and > another for how new relation types should be created. > > EHL
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]