Hi Sam, A reason for sticking to Link headers could be to keep 'consistency' in the protocol's hypertext mechanisms? Another reason is that tools for handling Link headers, client and server side, are likely to have broader availability. Cheers, Mike Sam Johnston wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for taking the time to look at our specifications. The categories are dealt with in a separate IETF Internet-Draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-http-category-header-00) but it's true that they could be layered on top of the Link: header. I hadn't considered this option at the time but it does make some sense. OTOH we need to sensibly layer properties/attributes on top of HTTP headers so we'll probably be blazing our own trail there anyway (using Property:/Attribute: headers modelled after Set-Cookie[2]:).
Sam
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk <mailto:mike@mykanjo.co.uk>> wrote:
I really like the protocol, you've done a great job
I have a question: Why is Category given a unique header, and not simply treated as another type of link relation for a resource?
i.e.
Category: compute; scheme="http://purl.org/occi/kind/"; label="Compute Resource"
.. could that actually be written as:
Link: <http://occi.org/kinds/compute>; rel=<http://purl.org/occi/kind>; title="Compute Resource"
Cheers, Mike _______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg@ogf.org> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg