- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:53:49 +1100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "www-talk@w3.org" <www-talk@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
On 07/02/2009, at 11:40 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Feb 6, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >> On 2/6/09 11:03 AM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: >> >>> There are many resources involved in HTTP, >>> only one of which is identified by the requested URI. Each of those >>> resources may have representations, and the meaning of the payload >>> in a >>> response message is defined by the status code. A 404 response is >>> going >>> to contain a representation of a resource on the server that >>> describes >>> that error. A 200 response is going to contain a representation of >>> the >>> resource that was identified as the request target. >> >> What this means is that a Link header in the HTTP response to a GET >> request >> might not be about the resource identified by the URI used to make >> that >> request. > > The Link header field defines what it is about: [RFC2068] > > The Link entity-header field provides a means for describing a > relationship between two resources, generally between the requested > resource and some other resource. > > It says "requested resource" there for a reason. It seems that has > been muddled a bit in Mark's draft, probably because you guys have had > too many discussions about what it could mean. Yes; this should be better in -04 (which is waiting for the IPR contributions clarification). > > > If you think it would be helpful to distinguish the Link header > field (resource metadata) from a Content-Link header field > (representation metadata), then that is a separate discussion. > > ....Roy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2009 00:54:29 UTC