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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:11:32 -0800
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <723F283C-ACB3-4292-88DC-F5A2B4AA35DD@mnot.net>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>

On 05/02/2008, at 5:20 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:

> tor 2008-01-31 klockan 09:55 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham:
>> I find this just plain weird. On POST responses, it implies that you
>> can negotiate for response headers on another resource and get them
>> tunnelled back in the current response. If there's a Vary header
>> present, does it apply to that resource too? If not, how do you know
>> what the requested variant really was?
> Content-Location, except that you can not blindly trust it due to
> security implications... and we have already agreed that URIs  
> indicated
> by Content-Location SHOULD NOT be subject to server driven content
> negotiation. Layering content negotiation ontop of those quickly leads
> to recursive madness.

That implies that the response is a representation of the "other"  
resource, which is often not desirable.

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 15:11:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC