Re: HEAD requests

Melvin,

I was able to figure out the issue.  It has been fixed in the latest
editor's draft.

- Steve Speicher


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:

> Melvin,
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 September 2013 16:15, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Melvin,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it a requirement of LDP servers to support HEAD requests as well as
>>>> GET.  Is it implied that since you can do a GET, you will be able to do a
>>>> HEAD?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that is the case.  It is not implied really, it is explicitly
>>> stated in the spec that you need to support HEAD.  The motivation
>>> (recalling WG discussions) was that a number of scenarios were seen as
>>> valuable to be able to do various tests on the URL and also receive
>>> additional data (such as paging and type headers), instead of needing to
>>> fetch the entire resource (perhaps a container and all its members).  Also
>>> the effort to support HEAD in addition to GET is relatively small (just
>>> omit the entity body in the response).
>>>
>>
>> Just looking at the spec, the last call and the current version seem to
>> have missing sections in the text:
>>
>> [[
>> Note that certain LDP mechanisms, such as paging, rely on HTTP headers,
>> and HTTP generally requires that HEAD responses include the same headers as
>> GET responses. Thus, implementers should also carefully read  and .
>> ]]
>>
>> Just a FYI: I'm sure this is already a work being worked on ...
>>
>
> Thanks for pointing this out, this looks like a respec bug (the tool that
> nicely handles formatting and putting links to sections, when it works).
>  I'll put it on my todo list.
>
> - Steve Speicher
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hope that helps,
>>> - Steve Speicher
>>>
>>>
>>
>