Change Proposal 005
Lukas Leander Rosenstock
webmaster at lukasrosenstock.net
Wed Feb 8 11:07:33 UTC 2006
Martin Atkins wrote:
>Hmm. Now that I think about it, isn't there an HTTP header "Link" which
>is supposed to be equivalent in functionality to the HTML LINK element?
If we look for what others are doing, maybe take a look at the Pingback
specification which is something different but the first part of it is
also about auto-discovery of information about a specific resource.
There they say:
Pingback-enabled resources MUST NOT use the HTTP Link header for
advertising pingback servers. HTTP Link headers require non-trivial
parsing, and were therefore deemed too heavy-duty for the purposes
of pingback server autodiscovery.
We could agree on this, too.
A bit off topic, but as that discussion was here too I add another quote:
Pages MUST NOT include more than one such header. HTML and XHTML
documents MAY include a <link> element in addition to an HTTP
header, although this is discouraged. If included, the header SHOULD
have exactly the same value as the <link> element. In the case of a
discrepancy, the HTTP header SHALL override the <link> element,
however, authors should be aware that some clients will not process
HTTP headers due to limitations of their environment.
More information about the yadis