Re: LDPR vs LDPC interaction models

To close this thread, I want to point out that this question was discussed 
on the WG call on Monday and the WG agreed that there is sufficient 
evidence confirming that LDP's usage of the Link header on requests is 
legit.

See the minutes of Monday's call for additional info:
http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-03-24#Link_header_on_requests

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at> wrote on 
03/21/2014 01:55:04 AM:

> From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
> To: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nandana.cse@gmail.com>, 
> Cc: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>, Linked Data Platform WG 
> <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Jakob Frank <jakob.frank@salzburgresearch.at>
> Date: 03/21/2014 01:56 AM
> Subject: Re: LDPR vs LDPC interaction models
> 
> Hi Nandana,
> 
> On 20/03/14 19:59, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
> > I was trying to find where it says Link header is a response header in
> > RFC2616 [1] and RFC5988 [2] without much luck. Could you please point 
to
> > the specific section ?
> 
> There is not such formal distinction in HTTP. But as we interpret 
> RFC5988 the purpose and the semantics of the Link header is clearly 
> server-side, it does not make much sense to be sent by a client.
> 
> But this just our interpretation, we could be wrong... Clarification of 
> this may be required before going to CR. We should find a header with 
> the proper semantics to declare the interaction model requested by the 
> client.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Sergio Fernández
> Senior Researcher
> Knowledge and Media Technologies
> Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
> Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria
> T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925
> sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at
> http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>