- From: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:23:37 +0100
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- CC: Maik Riechert <m.riechert@reading.ac.uk>, Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 11/11/2015 05:27 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >> IMO using *describedby* Link in HTTP Header, as in LDP, makes a >> reasonable approach >> * http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#link-relation-describedby > > +1 on that > > Another option is to negotiate for application/ld+json, > in response to which the server can send a 303 to an about resource. > It is important though that the thing and the description about the thing are different. > >> or to send HTTP OPTIONS > > I used to do that, but there are good arguments against it: > http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/10/29/NO_OPTIONS Thanks for that link Ruben! Useful thoughts on HTTP caching and recommendation to use HEAD "Here, it's important to use an appropriate link relation type; "describedby" is often appropriate here, but have a look at the registry first. If someone wants to discover a resource's capabilities before they interact with it, they can use HEAD." AFAIK Link in HTTP Header should also work well with CDN, while content negotiation might not http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20242780/which-cdn-solutions-support-caching-with-content-negotiation
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 17:23:47 UTC