- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 15:54:45 +0000
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
indeed, there seems to be a bit of confusion now on whether a rel is between a two resources (in both RFC 5986 and HTML5, or a representation and another resource, one example of the latter would be rel=stylesheet - I won't even get in to the combination rels like alternative or the annotation ones like nofollow! Nathan Jonathan Rees wrote: > But if you look at RFC 5988, most of the relations seem to be > *resource* relations, not representation relations. The introduction > speaks of "relationships between resources"; also > > "links between resources > need not be format specific; it can be useful to have typed links > that are independent of their serialisation, especially when a > resource has representations in multiple formats." > > So it's a bit confusing to say that Link: is an entity-header (which, > I admit, 5988 does). I guess a "next" Link: on a 404 response would > tell you what the next resource is after one that the representation > carried in the 404 response is a representation of, not the next one > after the requested resource (which may still exist somewhere). > > This rules out one application I really wanted to use Link: for, which > is to use it with a 301 or 302 response to give information about the > resource identified by the URI. You could call this a "value-added > redirect". With this interpretation it would refer to some resource of > which the entity in the redirect response was a representation - a > very different beast. Oh well! > > Jonathan > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: >>>> Julian Reschke wrote: >>>>> On 12.10.2010 01:02, Nathan wrote: >>>>>> I'm looking for a quick bit of guidance on whether the Link header >>>>>> would >>>>>> class as representation metadata >>>>> The Link header spec says "entity header", which is the terminology we >>>>> used in HTTPbis until draft 10; so I think it's supposed to fall into the >>>>> same class as "Content-Language", for example. >>>> Sorry but I need to come back to this one, can I get a definitive answer >>>> (please :)) on whether the Link header is representation metadata (like >>>> Content-Type), or not? >>> It is sometimes metadata. Some of those times it is representation >>> metadata, like Content-Type, whereas in other times it can be >>> resource metadata, like Vary. >>> >>> And occasionally it is just part of the representation, though that >>> tends to confuse people who think data == body and headers == meta. >>> >>> What the link is for depends entirely on the rel value. >> Thanks Roy, that's exactly the answer I was hoping for! >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan >> >> > >
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 15:56:25 UTC