- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:52:35 +0200
- To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-ldp@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+Bx68_wmVTgYHKcchFtRsC+0uqnMuGONfD9YTRLxh87w@mail.gmail.com>
On 17 September 2013 21:40, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote: > Melvin, > > I was able to figure out the issue. It has been fixed in the latest > editor's draft. > Looks good, thanks! > > - 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 22:53:03 UTC