Re: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109))

Julian Reschke wrote:
> >5. What does "might be individually accessed" mean? As far as cache
> >validation is concerned (which is the only time Content-Location is used in
> >the protocol itself), the Content-Location doesn't have to be accessible.
> >That whole condition can be removed since it is meaningless.
> 
> What's the point in supplying a Content-Location, if nobody can access it?

Could it be like XML namespace URIs - to provide a unique identifier
that is not necessarily meant to be an accessible resource?

-- Jamie