Change Proposal 005

[Lukas Leander Rosenstock]

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.
    http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback-1.0

We could agree on this, too.
Regards,
 Lukas

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.