Re: A question about LDPR, LDP-RS, and rel="type" Link headers

Hi Steve/all,

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <
> nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>
>>
>> Also regarding the Link header, in 5.2.1.4 we say 'The notes on the
>> corresponding LDPR constraint apply equally to LDPCs.'. So does this mean a
>> container should always advertise two Link headers, e.g.
>>
>> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type"
>> Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type"
>>
>> I find it a bit redundant as LDPC is a subclass and always a LDP-RS/LDPR
>> but not an issue. Just wanted to make sure as I don't remember all the
>> discussions on client inference vs overhead.
>>
>> I see no need to repeat these.
>
> - Steve Speicher
>

As I read the requirements of the spec, I thought both ldp:Resource and
ldp:XContainer headers should be present in the response. But based on the
above comment and a feedback received from Henry, I changed the primer not
to repeat ldp:Resource the header. But now when I check the examples added
in the spec [1], I see those two headers are explicitly present. So shall
we follow the same style in the primer ?

Best Regards,
Nandana

[1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc