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

Re: Multi-server HTTP

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:08:51 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <A11E060B-9B19-48E3-8D4A-D27F69E4DC1E@mnot.net>
To: Nicolas Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com>
Totally; we just need to be crisp about it.

My inclination would be that if we can be more inclusive without  
making it significantly more complex or risky, we should; otherwise,  
just do what's needed.


On 01/09/2009, at 1:49 PM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> That's a good start, but it deserves a bit of discussion.
>> "byte-for-byte" implies that the bodes are the same, but what about
>> things like:
>> * Entity headers (e.g., Content-Type)
>> * Available content-encodings
>> * Whether partial content is supported
>> * Whether the same set of methods are supported (e.g., if A is a
>> duplicate of B, will POSTing something to either have the same effect
>> as on the other?)
>> I think the answer is that entity headers should generally be the
>> same, so the real question is whether we're talking about the  
>> relation
>> describing:
>> a) resources with duplicate representations (i.e., a GET on any of  
>> the
>> dups will return the same reps)
>> b) duplicate resources (i.e., any method will have the same effect)
>> If it's (b), we should consider whether the resources are in fact the
>> same "behind the curtains" (e.g., POSTing to A has the exact same
>> effect on the world as POSTing to B), or whether they may be in fact
>> separate systems (i.e., A and B have the same "interface", but  
>> POSTing
>> to A may affect a different part of the world to B).
> Well, we're talking about static GETable resources with a single
> representation. But I agree that if you make a Link relation, you'd  
> want it
> to be applicable to as many HTTP resources as possible... Or is it
> possible / reasonable to say "this relation doesn't make sense for  
> dynamic
> or POSTable resources and shouldn't be used for those"?

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 07:09:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC