W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 2009

Re: Inconsistencies in Discovery methods

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:41:21 -0500
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, www-talk@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-Id: <60C175F5-AEE1-4386-9A4A-457CDBF736D7@creativecommons.org>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>


On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> This solves my problem with regard to the Link header.
>
> On Feb 06, 2009 4:41 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
>> The Link header field defines what it is about: [RFC2068]
>>
>>    The Link entity-header field provides a means for describing a
>>    relationship between two resources, generally between the  
>> requested
>>    resource and some other resource.
>
> Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? The same spec defines entity- 
> header as:
>
>    Entity-header fields define optional metainformation about the
>    entity-body or, if no body is present, about the resource  
> identified
>    by the request.

This makes me wonder if Link: in its reincarnation ought to be defined  
to be a response-header instead of an entity-header:

    The response-header fields allow the server to pass additional
    information about the response which cannot be placed in the Status-
    Line. These header fields give information about the server and  
about
    further access to the resource identified by the Request-URI. [RFC  
2616]

What would this break? I would guess that there are implications for  
CN and caching, but not sure  whether the change would be an  
improvement or damaging.

Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2009 00:42:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:30 GMT