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

Re: i107

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:23:07 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1217474587.28440.90.camel@henriknordstrom.net>

On mån, 2008-07-28 at 15:34 +0100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Julian and I were just discussing this (alas, not yet over a Guinness).
> 
> I think the right thing to do here is to describe both variant  
> selection (p3, section 5.1, p6, 16.5) and validator comparison (p4  
> section 5) in terms of set theory (at least informally), so that the  
> set of representations available for a given request is the  
> intersection of those selected by negotiation and those requested  
> conditionally.

Selection perhaps, as you there usually start out with a set of resource
variants and this then gets narrowed down by content-negotiation. (but
it doesn't need to be an existing set, may well be dynamically generated
in terms of auto translation/transformation etc.. implementation detail)

But using set theory on conditionals probably gets too confusing, at
least if we are talking about If(-None)-Match where the condition
applies to the SINGLE selected representation after content negotiation
has done it's play.

The two is a bit opposite of each other when thinking of sets. In
negotiation the "set" is on the server side, while in conditions the
"set" is on the requesting site. There never is a set operation on both
sides.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 03:40:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:53 GMT