- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:05:31 +1100
- To: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net>
- Cc: "'Eran Hammer-Lahav'" <eran@hueniverse.com>, "'Phil Archer'" <phil@philarcher.org>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <92D93E98-06CD-417C-948C-7E0D4C480572@mnot.net>
On 04/12/2008, at 1:56 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: > [disclaimer: I知 new to the rel/rev discussion so ignore all this if > I知 treading on well-worn territory.] > > I agree that if both 途el? and 途ev? are included for outbound and > inbound links, respectively, their semantics must be uniform for all > applications. Ideally, agreed. However, the problem is that defining the difference between inbound and outbound is difficult to do with great precision, unless you do it in the confines of a full framework for semantics on the Web. That seems like overkill to the greatest degree for this, which is why I suggested keeping it a *bit* fuzzy. The important thing to decide here is what needs to go in *this* spec, realising that other specs can add things to it. > I also agree that the semantics of being able to assert both > outbound and inbound links are very useful (with my OASIS XDI TC co- > chair hat on I壇 be shot if I said anything else ? XDI RDF lives and > breaths by such statements). > > But I honestly don稚 know how useful it is specifically for HTTP > Link headers. I don稚 have enough experience there. > > What I can offer is this perspective on the two solutions I see > being discussed in the thread below (Solution #1 being to keep both > 途el? and 途ev? and clearly define the semantics of each to be the > directionality of the relation, and Solution #2 being what Eran > suggests to keep only 途el? and put the semantics defining > directionlity _in the relation URI_.) That's a non-starter; already-defined relations don't do this, current practice doesn't do this, and although rev isn't widely used, it is used in some places. > So in the HTTP/HTML Web world where the vast majority of URIs today > are opaque, keeping 途el? and 途ev? seems a little cleaner if you > want to keep the ability to express both outbound and inbound links. Agreed. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 03:06:11 UTC