- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:25:42 +1100
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
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 community. 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 http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 22:26:24 UTC