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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:50:13 +0100
Message-ID: <47B4A985.70400@gmx.de>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Brian Smith wrote:
> There is no such thing as a (client-)"selected representation" or a
> (client-)"requested variant." There is only the "client-selected
> resource" and the "server-selected variants." The client requests an
> operation to be performed on a resource specified by the Request URI,
> and the server selects one or more variants of that resource to operate
> on. The server may or may not select variants based on the request
> headers, and it may or may not use other criteria to select variants. It
> does not need to indicate to the client which variants it selected. The
> client cannot compel the server to select particular variants of a
> resource to operate on.

Yes.

> If the client wants to operate on a particular representation of a
> resource, then it should find a resource URI for that representation. A
> client may discover this URI via the Content-Location header that the
> server returned with that representation, or some other mechanism. If
> so, then the client may attempt to operate on the representation as a
> distinct resource by using that URI as the Request URI. Or, it might not
> be able to find such a URI, in which case the client cannot operate on
> the it distinctly from other representations of the same resource.

Yes.

> At least, the above is how HTTP currently works. And, that seems to be
> how we want HTTP to move (everything that needs to be independently
> addressable has its own URI). So, whatever special support PROPFIND
> needs should be localized to the specification of PROPFIND. And, new
> methods like PATCH need to be brought in line with the above model if
> they aren't already. But, HTTP itself does not need to change, except to
> clarify the above.

I agree with all of this. And I don't think we're trying to change HTTP. 
I also don't think PROPFIND needs special support. As a matter of fact, 
I'd like PROPFIND to work the same way as any other method.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 20:50:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT