W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: Link and Unlink

From: Manger, James H <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:07:50 +1100
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E114FDA21F6D@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Using Link as an HTTP request header to convey  a link that you want to appear as an HTTP response header only works if requests can never have their own Link headers. Is this true?

It might be better architecturally to send a PATCH request with the new Link headers in the body with, say, an application/header-patch media type.

Perhaps it depends on whether links are particularly special (warranting dedicated HTTP methods), or whether they are basically content metadata(not that different from, say, content-type).

--
James Manger

From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012 7:28 AM
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Link and Unlink

For review and comment...

  http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-link-method-00.txt


Updated definition of LINK and UNLINK, taking RFC5988 into consideration and using language consistent from current httpbis draft (read: shamelessly and remorselessly lifted).

Comments and feedback definitely welcome.

- James

Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 03:08:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 October 2012 03:08:26 GMT