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

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> 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.

In that case, we need to amend the current text as I read it as implying 
there is only one new resource.
Also:
<<<
    A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating
    the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just
    created, see Section 6.1 of [Part4].
>>>
Should be:
<<<
    If one single resource is created, a 201 response MAY contain...
>>>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves