W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > September 2013

Re: HEAD requests

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:52:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+Bx68_wmVTgYHKcchFtRsC+0uqnMuGONfD9YTRLxh87w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
On 17 September 2013 21:40, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:

> Melvin,
>
> I was able to figure out the issue.  It has been fixed in the latest
> editor's draft.
>

Looks good, thanks!


>
> - Steve Speicher
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 22:53:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:11 UTC