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

Re: requested resource / entity / representation / variant again..

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:17:56 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <643F9D38-955E-4779-8E76-57821AA4686C@mnot.net>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>

On 23/07/2009, at 8:12 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
>> I agree that conneg would benefit if it were mentioned that it's
>> scoped to a requested resource.
>
> I am sorry, but what exactly do you refer to by "requested resource"
> when there is content negotiation?

The resource at the target-URI, of course. All I'm saying is that when  
you're talking about selecting a representation to send in a response*  
when connect is in use, the pool of possible representations is  
bounded by those associated with / belonging to the requested resource.

* What p6 2.6 currently calls the "selected response", although I  
suspect that may eventually need to change if we're to properly  
address the terminology issue.


>> All of that said, I'd very much like to see us take a systematic
>> approach to determining the scope (server/resource/representation/
>> response/etc.) of metadata in the spec, because IME it's often been
>> misinterpreted, and sometimes led to interop problems.
>
> Which at the heart is what this is all about.

Agreed.

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 22:18:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT