- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@hal.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 19:03:22 -0600
- To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@neon.mcom.com>
- Cc: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In message <199412160001.QAA09663@neon.mcom.com>, Ari Luotonen writes: > >> Why is that such a bad thing? The server can give a lot of information >> about what's available by giving several URI: headers. > >Hmmm, I don't necessarily support this -- this wastes bandwidth. I agree. But I didn't say the server should or must; just that it may. The only thing that it _must_ do is issue _some_ URI: header with a vary parameter if it's got variants. That's enough to prevent proxies from jumping to conclusions. >Besides, the set of available versions may vary, so the proxy can >never be sure if it has all the presentations/knowledge of them >without going to the original server. If the server gives an Expires: header, the proxy can conclude that the variants are stable until then. Otherwise, the usual hueristics apply. See: http://www.hal.com/%7Econnolly/drafts/formalism.html for details. Dan
Received on Thursday, 15 December 1994 17:08:44 UTC