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

Hi Nandana,

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <
nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> 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 ?
>
I see no need to repeat #Container entry, though 4.2.1.4 seems pretty clear
that it expects #Resource "in all responses made to an LDPR's HTTP
Request-URI" [4.2.1.4].  That is why I repeated it.

[4.2.1.4]:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-gen-linktypehdr

Regards,
Steve Speicher


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