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

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

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:49:36 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-ID: <20071227224936.GA25221@shareable.org>

Mark Nottingham 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.

When a variant is identified by its own URI indicated by
Content-Location, and keeping in mind that target of a request may
depend on request method and other things, _how_ is that
Content-Location URI supposed to be used?

Does it mean GET should be used with the Content-Location URI to fetch
that specific variant, while other methods cannot be depended upon to
access the specific variant (particularly if the specific variant was
originally selected dependent on request method)?  If so, the unique
role of GET on Content-Location URIs should be made clear.

-- Jamie
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2007 22:49:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT