W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1998

Re: Clarification requests from Paul Bennett...

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:11:39 -0700
Message-Id: <9809081511.AA25531@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com


> From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:42:53 -0700
> To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
> Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, paulle@microsoft.com, frystyk@w3.org, dmk@bell-labs.com
> Subject: Re: Clarification requests from Paul Bennett...
> -----
material elided 
> > * Section 10.2.2 "201 Created" says nothing about the format of the
> >   response entity.  (section 10.3.1 "300 Multiple Choices" in a
> >   similar position is explicitly non-committal.
> >*** Do we want to crib the text from 300? ***
> 
> 300 is a redirect, which implies the client isn't done yet.  I guess the
> text from the second para. of 300 is okay without the last two sentences
> having to do with automatic redirection.
> 

I added:
"The response SHOULD include an entity containing a list of resource 
characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can 
choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the 
media type given in the Content-Type header field. "

To clarify this issue.
				- Jim

attached mail follows:


In message <9809031526.AA21910@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>, Jim Gettys writes:
>My opinions in *** ***
>Comments, anyone?
>				- Jim
>
>Extracted from Paul's mail.
>Clarifications:
>(material elided)...
>
> * Sections 9.3 "GET", 9.4 "HEAD" and 9.7 "DELETE" don't explicitly
>   rule out the presence of an entity-body, as section 9.8 "TRACE"
>   does.
>** at this late date, I'm uncomfortable introducing changes here, and in
>   fact, it may be useful to allow (though exisiting software may not work).
>   first, do no harm...***

Agreed.

> * Section 10.2.2 "201 Created" says nothing about the format of the
>   response entity.  (section 10.3.1 "300 Multiple Choices" in a
>   similar position is explicitly non-committal.
>*** Do we want to crib the text from 300? ***

300 is a redirect, which implies the client isn't done yet.  I guess the
text from the second para. of 300 is okay without the last two sentences
having to do with automatic redirection.

> * Section 10.3.6 "305 Use Proxy": "The Location field gives the URI
>   of the proxy."  But nowhere can I find a specification for this
>   URI form; presumably it's an HTTP URI without an abs_path part.
>** No, I don't think so; would inhibit evolution of the web to
>	future URI forms; you ought to be able to redirect to other
>	schemes.  I think that 3.2.1 defines well enough the
>	reference to generic URI's (finally draft standard!)***

Right.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 1998 08:14:22 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:23 EDT