- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:20:24 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14.02.2011 20:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> in a project I'm currently working on, my server returns 409 Conflict when trying to DELETE a resource that still has strong references from other resources -- so what I want to tell the client is that you can't DELETE resource A as long as resource B references it. >> >> Now, with close coupling between client and server this can easily be communicated in the response body, be it JSON or XML. >> >> However, I was wondering whether this use case is common enough to standardize it? Maybe with a link relation? > > A link relation makes sense. What would you call it? > required-by, dependency-of, bound-to, ... "dependency-of" sounds good to me. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 19:21:02 UTC