IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 05 February 2010 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A8728C1F3 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:07:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.045
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.045 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.446, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xoOrjYTjWJSe for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE3F28C1F7 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.26.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF61422E247; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:08:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <1C573F35-D767-4219-BF65-2E28A0C0205D@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:08:20 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9693EC6E-520B-4878-AC5D-4BBFF59FEAD3@mnot.net>
References: <20100119053002.5CD613A683B@core3.amsl.com> <E4FF7733-D744-4AC3-AB99-66A12868E4CE@mnot.net> <4B56E27D.800@gmx.de> <4B58574B.4050204@gmx.de> <FE77FC83-4137-421B-9511-02B13642AE1A@mnot.net> <4B596B30.1030400@gmx.de> <3FB0E494-EE9C-46F8-A924-2768C730763A@mnot.net> <1C573F35-D767-4219-BF65-2E28A0C0205D@gbiv.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:07:44 -0000

On 05/02/2010, at 9:07 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:17 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> At the moment, my intent is to remove 'rev' from the BNF and state how new parameters can be added (either by updating the document, for parameters common to many relation types, or on a per-type / per-application basis). 
> 
> I think we are going around in circles.

Yes, I've been feeling that way for some time now...

> The normal way to document a
> deprecated protocol feature is to include it in the ABNF and state
> that it is deprecated in the prose.  Just like obs-text in HTTP.
> Otherwise, we'll just keep getting asked "what happened to rev?"  


Please make a proposal with text. 

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email