W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant"

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:51:15 -0800
Message-Id: <D9537A51-A536-4993-8801-94F40BAA5119@gbiv.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>

On Feb 14, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Robert Siemer wrote:
> That inter-method-dependency is unacceptable. You say that the server
> may even select a representation based on whatever it wants, but it
> can't make it method dependend?

No, that isn't what we are talking about.  We are trying to find a way
to describe just one of the set of values (representations) that are
current for a given resource and then use that name to indicate
other requirements having to do with etags, other methods, etc.

Personally, I would prefer to just rewrite the sections so that
they make sense without knowing anything about the implementation
behind the interface.  But that requires serious thought and a lot
less emails to read.

> So I would define the "selected representation" as: "The  
> representation
> selected by the server based on request headers and/or other factors."

Then you would be talking about the payload within the response, not
the (formally known as "requested variant") that is the topic of this

> Roy, do you mean that all response entities are "representations"?

Yes.  See


Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 01:51:27 UTC

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