Re: HEAD requests

Melvin,

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On 10 September 2013 16:15, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Melvin,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it a requirement of LDP servers to support HEAD requests as well as
>>> GET.  Is it implied that since you can do a GET, you will be able to do a
>>> HEAD?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is the case.  It is not implied really, it is explicitly stated
>> in the spec that you need to support HEAD.  The motivation (recalling WG
>> discussions) was that a number of scenarios were seen as valuable to be
>> able to do various tests on the URL and also receive additional data (such
>> as paging and type headers), instead of needing to fetch the entire
>> resource (perhaps a container and all its members).  Also the effort to
>> support HEAD in addition to GET is relatively small (just omit the entity
>> body in the response).
>>
>
> Just looking at the spec, the last call and the current version seem to
> have missing sections in the text:
>
> [[
> Note that certain LDP mechanisms, such as paging, rely on HTTP headers,
> and HTTP generally requires that HEAD responses include the same headers as
> GET responses. Thus, implementers should also carefully read  and .
> ]]
>
> Just a FYI: I'm sure this is already a work being worked on ...
>

Thanks for pointing this out, this looks like a respec bug (the tool that
nicely handles formatting and putting links to sections, when it works).
 I'll put it on my todo list.

- Steve Speicher


>
>
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> - Steve Speicher
>>
>>
>