Hi,
There is a debate going on right now in IETF and W3C concerning the use
of the HTTP Link: header. See the long thread starting at [1]. I chair a
W3C Working Group, POWDER [2] and want to make a submission to this
debate supporting the reinstatement of HTTP Link. For a backgrounder on
this topic, see [3, 4].
What's this got to do with LWP? Potentially a lot. Because LWP,
helpfully in my view, renders HTML's link @rel tags as HTTP headers. At
least, I find this very useful in my own LWP-based application, the ICRA
label tester [5]. It means I can recommend that content providers either
use their server's ability to write in HTTP Link headers [6] or write in
HTML link @rel elements - whichever suits them better.
My question is this. Does anyone else have applications that make
specific use of HTTP Link? Do you see the fact that LWP treats the HTML
and HTTP versions of the link header as equivalent as good thing?
I have found one chap who obviously doesn't think so [7], but I think
that's more about him only wanting what HTTP returns and not what is in
the resource that the GET request returns.
The more examples of working code that recognise HTTP Link the better.
Thanks
Phil.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JanMar/0444.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
[3] http://esw.w3.org/topic/FindingResourceDescriptions
[4] http://www.mnot.net/blog/2006/06/22/link
[5] http://www.icra.org/label/tester/
[6] http://www.icra.org/systemspecification/#apache
[7]
http://www.semicomplete.com/blog/geekery/show-headers-in-get-request.html
--
Phil Archer
Chief Technical Officer,
Family Online Safety Institute
w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
