W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Input on request for link relation [ w/ proposed modifications to link draft ]

From: Nicolas Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:38:05 -0300
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <hdf7bd$nul$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> That said, I don't think you can use one link relation for both
> purposes, because even if they both took the same POST payloads, the
> further interactions beyond that (the callback to you) would also need
> to be compatible. While you could use the type attribute to
> distinguish between which protocol is in use, that's not really what
> it's for; the representation returned wouldn't be describing the
> protocol that was going to commence.

I think we badly need a way to differentiate links based on the *request* 
type if you did a POST on that URL (new attribute?).

If I see a 'next' link with a certain MIME type, it means if I follow the 
link, I'll get a response with that MIME type. If I see two 'next' links, I 
can choose which to use based on the MIME type I support.

But if I see an 'edit' link, what can I POST to it? What format or protocol 
is it expecting?

How can a MediaWiki page say that you can edit it by PUTting some data with 
type application/x-wiki to a certain URL? The type attribute is for the 
response, not the request.
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:38:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC