W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1999

Re: terminology question

From: Jacob Schroeder <js@catilina.becomsys.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:01:12 +0200
Message-Id: <19990408110112.60179@catilina.becomsys.de>
To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Thank you (all) very much for answering so promptly!

So it seems at least to be consesus, that the definition in the actual HTTP/1.1
document is obsolete :( , but since the terms seem to be used consistently
there, this does not much harm to the document itself.

I'm writing on a text covering some parts of HTTP and CN and I don't want
to use the terms "wrongly".

On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 06:52:48AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >After reading the spec for a while I suspect that
> >every possible entity from a given resource is a
> >"variant" and if content negotiation comes into play
> >it is termed "representation" as well. 
> 
> Nope, that's backwards.  Each possible entity from a resource is
> a "representation" of that resource at the time the message originated.
> A representation is a variant if, at origination time, the set of
> possible representations has a membership greater than one.  It is called
> a variant because the chosen representation varies based on the request
> parameters (content negotiation).
> 
So the different possible entities produced by some CGI script (maybe
including the remote IP address) would be termed "variant" as well, and this
could be considered a special case of content negotiation? (I know this sounds
theoretically, but this kind of questions are the ones that help me most)

Thanks a lot

Jacob

> ...
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 09:44:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:30 EDT