Re: [apps-discuss] [link-relations] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt

Justin Cormack <justin@specialbusservice.com> Sat, 02 July 2011 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <justin@specialbusservice.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7238F21F8626; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 06:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vl-5MgIAsY-N; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 06:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B08221F860F; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 06:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so2663242wwe.13 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.24.75 with SMTP id u11mr530555wbb.10.1309613470495; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.77] (188-220-243-64.zone11.bethere.co.uk [188.220.243.64]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fi5sm3014026wbb.22.2011.07.02.06.31.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 02 Jul 2011 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Justin Cormack <justin@specialbusservice.com>
To: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E0F1058.3050201@gmail.com>
References: <4E083D3F.6030200@gmx.de> <4E0D3EA5.7010803@gmail.com> <4E0DCFEF.20206@gmx.de> <4E0DEA77.3050007@gmail.com> <4E0E0E76.2080007@gmail.com> <4E0E995A.7060800@gmail.com> <4E0F1058.3050201@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 14:31:10 +0100
Message-ID: <1309613470.2807.17.camel@mackerel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:29:59 -0700
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "link-relations@ietf.org" <link-relations@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [link-relations] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:31:15 -0000

On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 12:34 +0000, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> Þann lau  2.júl 2011 04:06, skrifaði Mykyta Yevstifeyev:
> I agree. However, I don't understand the need for forbidding canonical 
> links to resources with multiple representations. Are there not to be 
> canonical links from representations of a resource to the resource (i.e. 
> from /spec.html and /spec.txt to /spec)?

I think this relation (which is useful) need to be called something
else, as it is performing a different function to canonical, which is
about relations between representations of resources, rather than
between representations of resources and a the resource itself
like /spec.

There does seem to not be a discussion of what is similar though in
terms of media types - is /spec.txt similar enough that /spec.html could
be a canonical link? One could certainly have a PNG version of an SVG
image with a canonical link I would presume.

Justin