W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Context Link Header on PUT/POST?

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:59:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmwvU9PSY64jQ_84S9fq5eWyuSc2RkD-K118qN0s06X0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Even though it is not covered by the specs, it does not mean it is illegal,
it just means it is not clearly defined with any standard behaviour.

For instance, ElasticSearch REST API allows you to send a query using GET
with a body in the request - it is supposedly not forbidden by the HTTP
spec, just not commonly done.

https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/search-request-body.html

I would agree with the earlier reply, if a client is able to insert such a
Link header in his request, then he should also be able to insert
Content-Type: application/ld+json

Or are you considering compatibility with servers who only want to handle
application/json? (which would be free to ignore the Link header)
 On 10 Mar 2015 21:20, "Robert Sanderson" <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Markus, (and all),
>
> To return to my original question then, the consensus is that a server
> that receives plain JSON without an explicit context should *reject* it
> *without* looking for a profile relation in the link header of the
> request?  Or at least that the JSON-LD specification does not imply that it
> should or should not do that.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Markus Lanthaler <
> markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Mrz 2015 at 13:40, Kingsley  Idehen wrote:
>> > On 3/5/15 8:13 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> >>  From Wikipedia [1], it seems that the Link header may just be valid
>> for
>> Response objects,
>> > not Request objects, but I confess that I can't really tell what Header
>> fields (request or
>> > response) are defined for HTTP 2.0. Were it legal, then IMO supplying a
>> Link to the context
>> > as part of a POST/PUT/PATCH would be reasonable, but why do it? The main
>> intention of
>> > the Link header is to either provide a context for a document that can't
>> otherwise be
>> > modified to include it inline, or when the client might not be able to
>> handle anything other
>> > than application/json. Obviously, in the request case, both client and
>> server must be JSON-
>> > LD aware, so placing it within the body makes the most sense (to me,
>> anyway).
>> >
>> > Gregg,
>> >
>> > I brought this issue or "Link:" in request headers, as a basic HTTP
>> > pattern, up with Mark Nottingham last year [1]. We do need to be able to
>> > leverage relations as context providers in an HTTP request.
>>
>> ... but the JSON-LD spec is not the right place to define this IMO.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Markus Lanthaler
>> @markuslanthaler
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 23:00:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:44 UTC