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

Re: ETags vs Variants, was: Revising RFC2616 - what's happening

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:48:31 +0200 (MEST)
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610231501100.5895@gnenaghyn.vaevn.se>

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> Consider, for example, a server implementation that does this (this
> is reasonable):
>
>   1. Look at "Accept-Encoding" to decide if known compression methods
>      are supported as a content-encoding.
>
>   2. If compression is supported, then for some types of response,
>      look at "User-Agent" to check for certain agents that do not
>      behave correctly for some compressed content types.
>
> That server would produce the following two _correct_ responses, for
> different request headers:
>
>   a. Vary: Accept-Encoding
>
>   b. Vary: Accept-Encoding, User-Agent
>      Content-Encoding: gzip

Is it the same server with the same configuration on the same URI ? 
because if it's the case, then only b) is right. The server has the 
knowledge of the variability axis and should populate the Vary: header 
accordingly and not on a case-by-case basis.
My reading of the spec is that Vary should carry the list of all headers 
used to send compute the variant, so f(x,y), and not send f(5, y) = g(y).
Cheers,

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Monday, 23 October 2006 13:51:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT