Change Proposal 005
mart at degeneration.co.uk
Thu Feb 9 08:32:41 UTC 2006
Lukas Leander Rosenstock wrote:
> 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.
However, we're already requiring relying parties to parse (in some
sense, anyway) HTML, which is a lot less trivial than the HTTP Link
header. Meanwhile, by using it we get the benefits that apply to the
HTML LINK attribute, namely that a later version of YADIS could switch
to a different format (changing the MIME type) while allowing existing
users to advertise documents in both formats. It's also more consistant
with what we're plonking into the HTML.
More information about the yadis