W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Content-Location in HTTP/1.1 text

From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:08 -0600 (CST)
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970218210505.6072I-100000@xochi.tezcat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2454
Here is an apropos question about the HTTP/1.1 spec (not about the t.c.n

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Koen Holtman wrote:
> >In message <Pine.SUN.3.95.970217175449.6072C-100000@xochi.tezcat.com>,
> >Klaus Weide writes:
> >>Reason: RFC 2068 describes several uses of Content-Location outside of
> >>content negotiation (even with a SHOULD in 14.15).
> The SHOULD in 14.5 is exactly why step 4a adds a content-location header.
I do not understand that part of RFC 2068.  To quote:

--- begin ---
   [...] In the case
   where a resource has multiple entities associated with it, and those
   entities actually have separate locations by which they might be
   individually accessed, the server should provide a Content-Location
   for the particular variant which is returned. In addition, a server
   SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the resource corresponding to
   the response entity.
--- end ---

What is the difference between the two cases described in these two
sentences?  Is the second sentence dependent on the first sentence's
"In the case where..."?

Does the "In addition" mean that a response may end up having more than
one C-Location headers?  (That would contradict the BNF immediately 
below, but it sounds that way to me.)  What is the difference between
the "resource corresponding to the response entity" and "the particular 
variant which is returned"?

(If this is just a cut-and-paste error, how should the text read?)

Received on Tuesday, 18 February 1997 19:24:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC