W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

RE: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology

From: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:15:14 -0800
Message-ID: <F1962646D3B64642B7C9A06068EE1E64070655CD@ex10.hostedexchange.local>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 06/02/2009, at 11:40 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> > Thus an entity in a 404 response, or in a PUT or POST request, would
> > not be called a representation, but other entities wouldn't. There
> > is no reason to redefine 'representation' unnecessarily introducing
> > confusion with other specifications.
> That's a discussion that's probably worth having. My understanding of
> Roy's position (I'm sure he'll correct anything I get wrong) is that a
> PUT response (for example) is a representation of *some* resource,
> it's just not the resource identified by the request-URI (unless it
> happens to have a matching Content-Location, of course). In that
> sense, it's representing the state of an anonymous resource.

I've also heard him say that "the response body sent with a 404 status
is a representation of a 404 response." [1]

Robert Brewer

[1] http://markmail.org/message/54jr3v2s5uy7jjzx
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 19:15:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:48 UTC