Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 05 February 2010 00:24 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBFA28C10D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:24:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.570, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 UkjWrr9U8lgi for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FAB28C0F4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1NdBzx-0003UZ-Ol for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:24:37 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1NdBzo-0003TT-HS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:24:28 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1NdBzn-0008Tm-6k for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:24:28 +0000
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 0525422E1F3; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:23:59 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B62D875.102@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:23:56 +1100
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7B248F44-44D9-4054-84A2-E9C4C5C251E1@mnot.net>
References: <20100119053002.5CD613A683B@core3.amsl.com> <E4FF7733-D744-4AC3-AB99-66A12868E4CE@mnot.net> <4B56E27D.800@gmx.de> <4B584E46.7000405@gmx.de> <2C94E45E-3373-4694-BFA3-FA7B595EAF65@mnot.net> <4B596450.7020001@gmx.de> <F1BF65AA-AE8F-435D-9097-AD629488E134@mnot.net> <4B62D875.102@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1NdBzn-0008Tm-6k 40569ea03b4a0cd7a26889626f160f63
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/7B248F44-44D9-4054-84A2-E9C4C5C251E1@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/8302
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1NdBzx-0003UZ-Ol@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:24:37 +0000
On 29/01/2010, at 11:45 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> ... >> If that's the case, you're saying that whether the anchor is allowed is really a property of the relation type, not the application, aren't you? ... > > First of all, I'd prefer to distinguish between (A) "must be processed" and (B) "may be processed, otherwise link must be rejected altogether". > > I see two purposes for the anchor parameter: > > 1) Making a statement about a subset of the context resource, by specifying a fragment identifier > > 2) Making a statement about a different resource than the context resource, such as > > 2a) because the context is anonymous (such as the response body for a 204, see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-07.html#rfc.section.A.1>), or > > 2b) because a reverse link is exposed (anchor as workaround for missing rev parameter) > > I'm still not sure why we would ever make special cases here, except for the known bugs in current implementations of the Link header where anchor is ignored (so mainly Mozilla/Opera for stylesheet links). Optimally, we just work with the vendors to get the bugs fixed. > > If that's not possible, allowing an opt-out per relation type might work, as long as behavior (B) would still be allowed. Is there any relation != "stylesheet" for which this would be relevant? I think most of them. E.g., what happens when my weblog http://www.mnot.net/blog/ contains a link header Link: </blog-publish>; rel="service"; anchor="http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/" ? After Sam visits my blog, should his browser (assuming it supports Atompub) use my site for editing next time he wants to post something? Likewise, what happens after I put this link header in all of my responses? Link: <http://www.yahoo.com/>; rel="self"; anchor="http://www.google.com/" ? Or better yet: Link: <http://www.mybank.com.au/mnot>; rel="payment"; anchor="http://www.amazon.com/" While it may be that browsers in general won't "remember" this information, that doesn't mean that we should specify things so that they're encouraged to handle these things, knowing full well that they won't. Opt-in seems much more sane that opt-out here, at least for different resources. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-… Mark Nottingham
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Mike Burrows
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-notting… Julian Reschke
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Jan Algermissen
- anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham… Julian Reschke
- rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingham-ht… Julian Reschke
- parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- editorial LC comments on draft-nottingham-http-li… Julian Reschke
- exposing sensitive information in URIs - LC comme… Julian Reschke
- Re: parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-notti… Mike Burrows
- Re: parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-notti… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-notti… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham
- Re: editorial LC comments on draft-nottingham-htt… Mark Nottingham
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: parameter quoting - LC comment on draft-notti… Julian Reschke
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Jan Algermissen
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Mark Nottingham
- Re: exposing sensitive information in URIs - LC c… Mark Nottingham
- Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-h… Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: editorial LC comments on draft-nottingham-htt… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Anne van Kesteren
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham
- Re: rev parameter - LC comment on draft-nottingha… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Mark Nottingham
- Re: anchor parameter - LC comment on draft-nottin… Julian Reschke