Re: HTTP 2.0 (was Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard)

Julian Reschke <> Fri, 25 September 2009 11:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05623A688F for <>; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.572
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.973, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SRpdoCcEbwGK for <>; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id A52673A686E for <>; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2009 11:41:17 -0000
Received: from (EHLO []) [] by (mp071) with SMTP; 25 Sep 2009 13:41:17 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19nIn88oFFntj1Vk1RPBgbbJ4JrUChQM56a4lMBv/ L8NCIb+4P2IjFI
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:41:06 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv: Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Johnston <>
Subject: Re: HTTP 2.0 (was Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard)
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.5600000000000001
Cc: Ian Hickson <>, HTTP Working Group <>, IETF Apps Discuss <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:40:14 -0000

Sam Johnston wrote:
> ...
> The link header could already make a huge difference to the way the web 
> works (I've already started on this with 
> draft-johnston-addressing-link-relations 
> <>), 
> but we're lacking the LINK and UNLINK verbs that HTTP originally defined 
> for managing them. Similarly, people often run into problems using 
> PUT/POST for requests that should have been handled by PATCH (which was 
> also [poorly] specified and then abandoned). Encodings are yet another 
> issue I'm increasingly coming up against for non-ASCII characters. "HTTP 
 > ...

We don't need HTTP 2.0 to define LINK, UNLINK or PATCH (the latter being 
defined in draft-dusseault-http-patch-14 which is progressing REALLY 

> as a meta-model" would also benefit from categories (which I have 
> already transplanted from Atom in draft-johnston-http-category-header 
> <>). Oh 
> and let's not forget about pulling in the MOVE and COPY verbs from 
> WebDAV so we can instruct servers to migrate resources (e.g. push a VM 
> from one cloud to another).

What stops you from doing this right now?

> ...
> Another significant pain point for me (and apparently others) is 
> collections. URLs should be able to return multiple resources headers 
> and all, without having to resort to add-ons like multipart MIME. That 
> way I could ask for, say, all of the contacts in my mail account and 
> have them rendered as vCard but with metadata like author and security 
> information, web linking to other contacts (eg FOAF), web categories, 
> etc. Presumably this would be relatively easy to do by tweaking the spec 
> (e.g. using CRLF separators between resources) but today I'm having to 
> use hacks like text/uri-list which have O(n+1) rather than O(1) 
> performance, or resorting to formats like Atom for this special case.
> ...

WebDAV (RFC4918) defines collections, and ways to get information about 
multiple resources at once.

> ...

BR, Julian