W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:13:01 +1100
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <6A83FD07-ED3D-46F5-949F-9E1E0E763F80@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


Is the text below the solution for i69?

Is it necessary to refer to PROPFIND (Personally, I'd like to avoid  
the informative ref if we can)?

What about changing the name? The proposal seems to change the concept  
substantially, and it's currently stuck in my head as a thing-on-the- 
wire, not a thing-on-the-server. Perhaps "variant resource"?

On 07/08/2007, at 8:52 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>   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.

Current text in 2616 for comparison:

> variant
> A resource may have one, or more than one, representation(s)  
> associated with it at any given instant. Each of these  
> representations is termed a `varriant'. Use of the term `variant'  
> does not necessarily imply that the resource is subject to content  
> negotiation.

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 23 December 2007 12:13:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC