W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-etag-on-write-00.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:21:06 +0200
Message-ID: <44DADE62.3010608@gmx.de>
To: sh@defuze.org
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Sylvain Hellegouarch schrieb:
> Both are fair points. I am still not convinced by the way Entity-Tranform
> is specified though. It seems over complicated. Why not defining the

Well, that's why I was submitting a draft -- feedback is needed. I 
realize that Entity-Transform currently may violate the KISS principle, 
maybe I should go back to it's minimal form of...:

Entity-Transform    = "Entity-Transform" ":" 1#transform-info
transform-info      = "identity" | "unspecified"

...and leave everything else to future specs.

> Entity-Transform header has follow:
> 
> Entity-Transform = "Entity-Transform" ":" media-type
> 
> Thus taking benefit from the existing IANA registration for what you call
> token in your proposal of the header. At least in that case the user-agent
> would know precisely how the server has transformed the request entity and
> the impact of that extension would be minimum.

Reusing media types sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure how this 
is going to work. Could you give examples for some of the use cases 
mentioned in the document (XML Infoset preserved, HTML filtering, SVN 
keyword substitution, AtomPub...)?

> If the header was not present in the response it would mean the server did
> not transform the entity.

We can't do that, because it's incompatible to RFC2616 (as reasoned in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-etag-on-write-00.html#rfc.section.1.3> 
-- if people feel I got this one wrong by all means speak up :-))


Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2006 07:21:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:46 GMT