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" <field...@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
