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: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:14:00 -0500 (EST)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801311010350.16922@ubzre.j3.bet>

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
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 15:14:06 GMT

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