Re: Proposal to close Issue-65: FirstPage HATEOAS Compliance

hello arnaud.

On 2013-05-10 9:18 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>1) Keep that in response to a GET, LDP servers MAY redirect to a resource
>that only contains the first page
>2) Remove built-in URL pattern <resourceURL>?firstPage
>3) Add that when LDP servers provide a resource that only contains the
>first page they may advertise it via an HTTP Link header rel=first (this
>is defined by IANA, alternatively we can define our own a la
>http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#:firstPage) on the resource.
>The latter (3) is only necessary if we want to retain the capability for
>a client to initiate paging. I think this is simple enough that it's
>worth considering but if this gives anyone heartburn or if it requires
>additional
> discussion for which we have no time I say drop it and close with (1) &
>(2). We can always add (3) later.

agreed that (3) could be optional (in the same way as RFC 4287 and 5005
are layered). however, a "first" relation should be used to link *to* the
first page (from a page *other* than the first page). for HATEOAS, you
would want to have relative paging links with "next" and "previous", so
that clients could follow those links to navigate between pages. that
would be an easy first step towards hypermedia affordances.

a more sophisticated design would be to use URI templates and allow
clients to request specific pages, but then you would want to advertise
the URI template and expose the variables in it, so that clients could
request representations with explicit values for things such as page size,
or page number.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 16:52:24 UTC