Roy T. Fielding wrote: > ... > No. The variant is not an entity. Think of variant as the target > of a request once URI+Vary-fields is taken into account. It is the > resource-as-subdivided-by-negotiation, which was the original definition > before it got mixed up in committee. Now, if we add the notion of > a method that acts by indirection (PROPFIND), then we merely add > that notion to the definition in general. > > variant > The ultimate target resource of a request after indirections > caused by content negotiation (varying by request fields) and > method association (e.g., PROPFIND) have been taken into account. > Some variant resources may also be identified directly by their > own URI, which may be indicated by a Content-Location in the > response. > ... The problems that I see here are: 1) for PROPFIND and friends, not only request header fields and method names, but also the request *body* select the variant -- I don't have a problem with that, but it should be spelled out. 2) a bigger problem IMHO is that allowing this additional level of indirection creates different classes of entity tags. Example: Entity tags returned in GET/HEAD/PUT/POST/DELETE can only be used for GET/HEAD/PUT/POST/DELETE. Similarly, for PROPFIND/PROPPATCH. I'm a bit concerned about that. Best regards, JulianReceived on Friday, 17 August 2007 13:15:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC