W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

RE: Changes to Content Negotiation, Entity Tags, and If-*

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 14:59:18 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-960528215918Z-6037@tide21.microsoft.com>
To: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 'Daniel DuBois' <dan@spyglass.com>
Cc: "'fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU'" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>


>----------
>From: 	Daniel DuBois[SMTP:dan@spyglass.com]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, May 28, 1996 9:40 AM
>To: 	http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Cc: 	fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU
>Subject: 	Re: Changes to Content Negotiation, Entity Tags, and If-*
>
>>subgroup's hypermail archive.  The only difference is that I require
>>Vary to be sent even when Alternates is present, since that is the only
>
>This is enough of a difference to concern me.  I have not yet seen a
>convincing series of examples that demonstrate a set of rules by which
>all
>parties can logically behave when presented with both a Vary header and
>an
>Alternates header in a response.
>
>If I as an origin server serve different responses based on the
>strlen() of
>the Accept: header, I would add "Vary: Accept".  That's a different
>beast
>than adding "Vary: Accept" to a transparently negotiated response.  You
>might be able to come up with a clear, air-tight description of
>Alternates
>that 'frees up' some of the constraints normally placed on a recipient
>by
>the presence of a Vary: header, but it has yet to be proven to me.

It seems pretty simple to me: if both Vary: and Alternates: were present
in a response, then a recipient should get correct behavior if it obeyed
either one and ignored the other.

Paul
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 1996 15:47:36 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:00 EDT