Re: Is it correct to respond with partial representation for low capabilities media-types?
Jan Algermissen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.rest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jun 21, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Philippe Rathé wrote:
> By the way, does somebody know if an http header is considered part of
> the representation from a REST POV? Because it is possible to define
> link relations in the header response without it being in the
> "metadata body container".
>
> I'm tempted sometimes to use media types that are not hypermedia and
> get around this by defining link relations in the Link header field.
That is a perfectly valid thing to do. 'Link' is defined to be an entity header in RFC 5988, section 5 "The Link entity-header field..." and thus can equally well carry hypermedia controls as the message body can.
> What are the downsides of making use of such non first-class
> hypermedia representations?
None really. I assume one of the reasons for Link headers being there is exactly that.
Jan
> In other words, what typical bad use
> someone can do of rfc5988?
>
> Thanks a lot for your comments.
> -- Philippe
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/