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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sat, 02 July 2011 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.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 97D6421F8535; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.54
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, 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 r+5rg8r9oVTZ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CE411E8070; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so4692721fxe.27 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 21:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=A8YLEkQbL4qleIbh8VbpVN+jWEQ/O/NpZ25EuzOVV1o=; b=q2QtK2J9G0zrgVILP6f87WOCTsQ8yOulm3/QaUbdXFPtM9abhiFl1kV2UlnrduUzJT l7VUrtsOeSxZQfHTAmV7rlxEHzJcAcwyD0VV51nccoJiiWi1BC4pVIgbobGkyHq7blWf F+vQW9nOujbURGRCebitAQ5vUwG7/eM9e5WO4=
Received: by 10.223.69.65 with SMTP id y1mr5939296fai.60.1309579565624; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 21:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m26sm2793357fab.34.2011.07.01.21.06.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 01 Jul 2011 21:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E0E995A.7060800@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 07:06:50 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
References: <4E083D3F.6030200@gmx.de> <4E0D3EA5.7010803@gmail.com> <4E0DCFEF.20206@gmx.de> <4E0DEA77.3050007@gmail.com> <4E0E0E76.2080007@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E0E0E76.2080007@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "link-relations@ietf.org" <link-relations@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] 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 04:06:07 -0000

01.07.2011 21:14, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> Þann fös  1.júl 2011 15:40, skrifaði Mykyta Yevstifeyev:
>> Old:
>>> o The source URI of a "300 Multiple Choices" URI (Section 10.3.1 of
>>> [RFC2616]) or a permanent redirect (Section 10.3.2 of [RFC2616]).
>> New:
>>> o The source URI, which defines a resource which provides choice
>>> in different represntations of a given resource, ientified by
>>> the context URI, or is a link which has been permanently replaced
>>> by an other one.
>> etc.
> Your wording seems overly confusing. Which is the resource that 
> "provides choice in different represntations of a given resource?" A 
> standard could be assigned the URI <http://example.org/spec>. An HTTP 
> GET /spec might be responded with an HTTP/1.1 300 choice, and an 
> entity linking to /spec.node.html, /spec.html, /spec.pdf, and 
> /spec.txt. The resource (the standard, that is) would in no way 
> provide this choice. The HTTP server simply offered multiple 
> representations.
First, this was an example only.  Next, my point was that the document 
makes HTTP/'http' scheme mandatory in context/target URIs, which I don't 
think is appropriate, since canonical URI may refer to a resource 
accessible via other protocol.  Even though HTTP is going to be the most 
often use case of canonical link relation, we shouldn't exclude other 
protocols.

Mykyta