Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Strike that; looking more closely, RFC4646 makes sense ATM (although LTRU will change that).


On 24/07/2009, at 11:02 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

Hi Noah,

Sorry, that slipped through the cracks.

lang doesn't make any sense in this context; in HTML it applies to the link text, but there is none here.

Regarding hreflang - looking through the history, it's been discussed in a fairly positive light a few times, but never made it in. I think it does make some sense, since it's both in Atom and HTML. I'm a bit concerned about what the appropriate reference is for the value space; ATM I'm thinking BCP47 directly, rather than to a specific RFC, to allow it to evolve*.

Anyone see an issue with adding hreflang with a value space of BCP47?

Cheers,

* Often, a reference to an RFC is preferable, so that software can be reliably written to a specific set of identifiers. My initial feeling is that here that's not appropriate to do that, because language tags are labels, not something that you're going to hardcode into infrastructure software. Feedback appreciated, especially from the i18n community.



On 24/07/2009, at 7:08 AM, Noah Slater wrote:

Hey Mark,

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:32:18PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I'm tracking proposed changes to -06 as a result of Last Call at:
http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt

I'm not sure how this process works, so please just say so if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick. I've sent a number of emails to the list about adding
two language related link parameters.

My original email was:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0196.html

My next email was:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0100.html

And I added some clarification here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0112.html

I'm worried that your most recent email means that my suggestions wont make it into the specification. If that's the case, I was hoping for some comentary so
that I understand why that isn't going to be possible.

Thanks,

--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]