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

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

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