- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:41:21 -0500
- To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, www-talk@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> This solves my problem with regard to the Link header.
>
> On Feb 06, 2009 4:41 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? The same spec defines entity-
> header as:
>
> Entity-header fields define optional metainformation about the
> entity-body or, if no body is present, about the resource
> identified
> by the request.
This makes me wonder if Link: in its reincarnation ought to be defined
to be a response-header instead of an entity-header:
The response-header fields allow the server to pass additional
information about the response which cannot be placed in the Status-
Line. These header fields give information about the server and
about
further access to the resource identified by the Request-URI. [RFC
2616]
What would this break? I would guess that there are implications for
CN and caching, but not sure whether the change would be an
improvement or damaging.
Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2009 00:42:02 UTC