4 ms·

FWIW, RFC 8288 was preceded [1] by RFC 5988, and RFC 5988 [2] says in its section '1. Introduction': "A means of indicating the relationships between resources

FWIW, RFC 8288 was preceded [1] by RFC 5988, and RFC 5988 [2] says in its section '1. Introduction': "A means of indicating the relationships between resources on the Web, as well as indicating the type of those relationships, has been available for some time in HTML [W3C.REC-html401-19991224], and more recently in Atom [RFC4287]. These mechanisms, although conceptually similar, are separately specified. However, links between resources need not be format specific; it can be useful to have typed links that are independent of their serialisation, especially when a resource has representations in multiple formats." "To this end, this document defines a framework for typed links that isn't specific to a particular serialisation or application. It does so by redefining the link relation registry established by Atom to have a broader domain, and adding to it the relations that are defined by HTML." [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8288 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8288 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

solipsism 7y ago
it can be useful Such as in which situations? It's not obvious at all, so a reader (that is, an API designer) is on their own to try and divine whether there's any real reason to follow this "standard" instead of doing things in the more natural and standard way. This is my point. Not that it's hard to read these RFCs... but that they're often so vague, and is so often hard to know whether there's any benefit at all to following them in one's specific situation. That doesn't stop self-appointed standards cops from smacking people down.
yawaramin 7y ago
I might be missing the obvious, but I don't see in your quote the answer to the question: > Where in that RFC does it discuss _why the fuck_ I would want to put an API link in the headers instead of the body?
- niftich 7y ago
  The answer is in the part that says "it can be useful to have typed links that are independent of their serialisation, especially when a resource has representations in multiple formats". In HTTP, URLs locate a 'resource'. Then you and the server do content negotiation, implicit and/or explicit, to select a 'resource representation'. Think of these as different formats for the same conceptual thing identified by the URL. Some formats like HTML can support hypermedia that can have embedded links. Some, like 'text/plain' or 'image/gif', can't. Link headers allow links from the current resource to other resources to be communicated even if the chosen representation can't communicate links in its body.
  - yawaramin 7y ago
    Got it, thanks. How do you define 'the chosen representation can't communicate links in its body'?
    - niftich 7y ago
      You as the client try to GET /my-receipts/20190512-1 from Fancy Receipt Scanning Service, and content-negotiate with an Accept header to "text/plain" or "image/gif" (e.g. to get a plain copy or a scan). There's no agreed-upon way of communicating links in plain text or GIF, so Fancy Receipt Scanning Service can't serve you a GIF scan of your receipt that links to a product page for every item you bought. If you accepted "text/html", it could have served HTML that embedded these links within the response body, but you didn't accept "text/html". It can choose to send links as headers, if it still wishes to communicate links.
      - yawaramin 7y ago
        That's fair, but if I'm defining an API that serves, say, JSON, I can define a schema for it and tell my clients what things mean in the schema, including which things are links.

solipsism 7y ago

it can be useful Such as in which situations? It's not obvious at all, so a reader (that is, an API designer) is on their own to try and divine whether there's any real reason to follow this "standard" instead of doing things in the more natural and standard way. This is my point. Not that it's hard to read these RFCs... but that they're often so vague, and is so often hard to know whether there's any benefit at all to following them in one's specific situation. That doesn't stop self-appointed standards cops from smacking people down.

yawaramin 7y ago

I might be missing the obvious, but I don't see in your quote the answer to the question: > Where in that RFC does it discuss _why the fuck_ I would want to put an API link in the headers instead of the body?

niftich 7y ago
The answer is in the part that says "it can be useful to have typed links that are independent of their serialisation, especially when a resource has representations in multiple formats". In HTTP, URLs locate a 'resource'. Then you and the server do content negotiation, implicit and/or explicit, to select a 'resource representation'. Think of these as different formats for the same conceptual thing identified by the URL. Some formats like HTML can support hypermedia that can have embedded links. Some, like 'text/plain' or 'image/gif', can't. Link headers allow links from the current resource to other resources to be communicated even if the chosen representation can't communicate links in its body.
- yawaramin 7y ago
  Got it, thanks. How do you define 'the chosen representation can't communicate links in its body'?
  - niftich 7y ago
    You as the client try to GET /my-receipts/20190512-1 from Fancy Receipt Scanning Service, and content-negotiate with an Accept header to "text/plain" or "image/gif" (e.g. to get a plain copy or a scan). There's no agreed-upon way of communicating links in plain text or GIF, so Fancy Receipt Scanning Service can't serve you a GIF scan of your receipt that links to a product page for every item you bought. If you accepted "text/html", it could have served HTML that embedded these links within the response body, but you didn't accept "text/html". It can choose to send links as headers, if it still wishes to communicate links.
    - yawaramin 7y ago
      That's fair, but if I'm defining an API that serves, say, JSON, I can define a schema for it and tell my clients what things mean in the schema, including which things are links.