W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:51:29 -0800
Message-Id: <007DF19A-C1B4-4FE3-A307-D0DC5EB27786@gbiv.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

On Jan 8, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Henrik mentioned a counterproposal in passing:
>
>> The "requested variant" is pretty clear. The variant returned had the
>> request been a GET request, or in case of the ETag returned by PUT  
>> a GET
>> request immediately after completion of the PUT.
>
> I've seen at least one other person agree (assumedly after  
> appropriate wordsmithing). Roy, thoughts?

Variants are not returned.  I am happy to replace variant with the
right terminology (representation) if the WG doesn't mind.  That is
part of what I was talking about earlier when I said that 2616
often defines things in terms of server implementation when it
really should restrict itself to the visible interface.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 03:51:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:36 GMT