W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:37:05 +0200
Message-Id: <A74BE72E-899F-4663-9657-AD91AB607F9E@gbiv.com>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: wangxiao@musc.edu

On Apr 11, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> I found the 1997's HTTP draft (RFC 2068).  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/ 
> rfc2068.txt, which section, describing the LINK.
>   The LINK method establishes one or more Link relationships between
>   the existing resource identified by the Request-URI and other
>   existing resources. The difference between LINK and other methods
>   allowing links to be established between resources is that the LINK
>   method does not allow any message-body to be sent in the request and
>   does not directly result in the creation of new resources.
>   If the request passes through a cache and the Request-URI identifies
>   a currently cached entity, that entity MUST be removed from the
>   cache.  Responses to this method are not cachable.
>   Caches that implement LINK should invalidate cached responses as
>   defined in section 13.10 for PUT.

That is the LINK method.  It is not the same as the Link header field.

> I don't what kind of "typed" link should be modeled in LINK, but  
> the requirement for LINK to make sense is that message must be  
> *empty* because there is no other way to tell the reason of *empty*  
> message, such as due to copy right restriction etc..
> But the reason for UA2D approach is not based on the assumption of  
> the message is *empty* but *not empty* because by then they can  
> avoid 303 with  LINK+200.  You tell me where is the rational.

This has no relation whatsoever to Mark's draft.

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 05:37:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:21 UTC