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

Yves Lafon wrote:
> The definition of 201 assumes that only one resource is created, so if a 
> POST creates multiple new resources, 200 should be returned instead of 
> 201. However, in the text:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01#section-9.2.2
> <<<
> The response SHOULD include an entity containing a list of resource 
> characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can 
> choose the one most appropriate.
>>>>
> Should we keep this "multiple locations for one resource" paradigm?

First of all, I do not agree with the "single new resource" 
interpretation. As Brian observed, that would be a conflict with RFC5023.

> ...

BR, Julian