Re: Action-136 what we need to add to the spec for context uri in the link header on put and post

+1 for the Option 1.

Best Regards,
Nandana


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 5.2.3.4 needs to define the context uri as the to-be-created resource,
> since RFC 5988 only defines the default context uri for responses to
> retrieval requests.
>
> We have a choice about how to do that;
> 1: simply specify that the *default* context URI is the to-be-created
> resource's URI
> 2: define a specific syntax (presumably "<>" aka the null relative URI) as
> specifying the to-be-created resource's URI
> Option 1 is better insofar as clients get the desired behavior by default;
> option 2 requires them to explicitly add the request header.  I propose
> option 1.
>
> 5988 always allows the sender to override the default context URI by
> explicitly including anchor="context URI" on the Link header, so (on the
> error paths) there is no difference from the server's point of view.  On
> the normal path the server has code of similar (minimal) complexity under
> either option.
>
> The same issue exists with PUT; and arguably with OPTIONS and DELETE,
> depending upon whether or not one considers those to be "retrieval"
> requests.  But as the action was limited to put/post, and there's no
> LDP-assigned semantics on the others, no reason to flog them.
>
> Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages<http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe>
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>