Open westurner opened 11 years ago
Makes sense, however given that we describe service downtime the service may be down and so the link header field would never load in the first place. Need to be threading carefully here! :)
To me, the advantage of this over just handling standard HTTP codes [1] would be that I may have advance notice of when and why a particular service would be unavailable.
If the HTTP response code to a HEAD request is not a 200 OK, operational questions I would have -- as a user or an automated agent -- would include:
If a browser or an external aggregating service could grep this structured data from the page (as with #10 Schema.org Event microdata), I could have advance notice of when and why a particular service would be unavailable.
These are all academic and of no use or consequence if a service is actually down. Lets keep it simple, and not add complication for the sake of it.
I'd make two arguments for this:
RFC5988 "specifies relation types for Web links, and defines a registry for them. It also defines the use of such links in HTTP headers with the Link header field."
This could be used with or without RFC5785. (#2)