W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > September 2013

Re: claimed completion of ACTION-97 - proposal for pure-HTTP paging

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:58:51 -0400
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <89002860-7D59-4DA9-BEC9-533CD5D0B758@3roundstones.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
+1

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Sep 21, 2013, at 21:40, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:

> Find the <PROPOSAL/> 44 lines down.
> 
> TimBL's comment LC-2836 proposed moving page control out of the body
> of an LDPR and into headers.
> <https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/55082/ldp/2836?cid=2836>
> 
> This buys us:
>   Potential reuse outside of LDPRs.
>   Unrestricted data in an LDPR (screw case: an LDPR which includes a
>    page from another LDPR).
> 
> The first example in the LDP LC decribes how a GET on <resourceURL>
> 303's (now 208's?) to e.g. <resourceURL>?firstPage, or OPTIONS on
> <resourceURL> yields:
>  Link: <resourceURL>?firstPage; rel="first"
> The content of <resourceURL>?firstPage includes client data plus this
> paging data:
> 
> [[
> <http://example.org/customer-relations?firstPage>
>   a ldp:Page;
>   ldp:pageOf <http://example.org/customer-relations>;
>   ldp:nextPage <http://example.org/customer-relations?p=2>.
> ]] <http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpr-PagingIntro> (can we have an anchor
>   on the <div class="example"/> elements?)
> 
> The paging in this example is a singly-linked list split across HTTP
> and the payload. We can move it all into HTTP (for the reasons above)
> using link types defined in RFC5988 Web Linking:
> 
> first      - An IRI that refers to the furthest preceding resource in a
>             series of resources.
> last       - An IRI that refers to the furthest following resource in a
>             series of resources.
> previous   - Refers to the previous resource in an ordered series of
>             resources
> next       - Refers to the next resource in a ordered series of resources.
> 
> The type arc can come from RFC6903 Additional Link Relation Types:
> type      - Refers to a resource identifying the abstract semantic
>            type of which the link's context is considered to be an
>            instance.
> 
> 
> <PROPOSAL>
>  GETs and OPTIONS on <resourceURL> remain the same.
> 
>  GET/HEAD on <resourceURL>?firstPage returns purely user content with:
>    Link: http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Page; rel=type
>    Link: <resourceURL>?page2; rel=next
> 
>  Lack of a Link: rel=next means you're at the end (closed HTTP world).
> 
>  GET/OPTIONS on "doubly-linked servers" return an addtional last linl:
>  Link: <resourceURL>?page2; rel="last"
> 
>  GET/HEAD on <resourceURL>?page2 on "doubly-linked servers" includes
>    Link: <resourceURL>?firstPage; rel=previous
> </PROPOSAL>
> 
> 
> I prefer these link types to others in the IANA registry:
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml>
> 
> RFC6903 Additional Link Relation Types:
> about      - Refers to a resource that is the subject of the link's context.
> 
> RFC6573 The Item and Collection Link Relations:
> collection - The target IRI points to a resource which represents the
>             collection resource for the context IRI.
> item       - The target IRI points to a resource that is a member of
>             the collection represented by the context IRI.
> 
> POWDER:
> describedBy
> RFC6892 The 'describes' Link Relation Type:
> describes
> 
> RFC6906 The 'profile' Link Relation Type:
> profile    - Identifying that a resource representation conforms to
>             a certain profile, without affecting the non-profile
>             semantics of the resource representation.
> -- 
> -ericP
> 


Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 15:59:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:44 UTC