RT @viktorklang: @jboner My HTTP abuse detector goes haywire: "Adding an item with a GET request:" – Aaaargh ;-)
RT @tim_keller: Link: New ECMAScript Language Specification(5th Edition) is out http://tumblr.com/xxz4htqi6
1
1
@dret Yes. I'm not sure about should (or at least SHOULD) though. It could be similar to media type registration - useful, but not required
1
@dret 'method' seems generic enough for my taste, could be backed by an extensible set maintained by IANA (including HTTP verbs, of course)
1
@dret xml:link with optional 'rel', 'type' and 'method' would be entirely sufficient IMO
1
RT @unclebobmartin: http://bit.ly/tGP6G Star Trek vs. Star Wars. Funny.
1
2
@dret: "well, it's time to propose <xml:link rel=''/>! after all …" +1, great idea
1
RT @Carnage4Life: Did we really need scientists to figure this one out? - http://i.imgur.com/RJjap.jpg -- LOL
1
@dret Not suggesting link rel is "better" than media types, just saying that if they're media type-specific, a proprietary link is OK, too
@dret Do you know the link header draft? Seems to me what we need is standardized rel values, not surrounding syntax http://bit.ly/8eAoL3
@mamund I didn't quite get that, please elaborate to the full extent of the 140 characters available?
One of my most popular blog posts ever: http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/2003/12/backslash_on_mac_os_x.html
2
RT @pandamonial: Programming paradigms http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/paradigmsDIAGRAMeng108.jpg
1
3
"Simplicity, purity and openness" - Great interview with Dieter Rams, one of my personal heroes http://bit.ly/1ldFs6
1
@dret I agree; I prefer using <link> over <x>. I'm just not entirely sure about the role media types should play then
1
@jimwebber @dret In other words, I consider defining 'rel' values independently of media types to have the most potential
1
@jimwebber @dret My point was that if the media type defines the meaning, you don't gain much from using <link rel='x' /> over <x />
1