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

Hi Steve,

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>

I agree. I meant to say one of the concrete container types and not
#Container. I will restore the Primer examples accordingly.

Best Regards,
Nandana