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

Re: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:13:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4AB0D64E.20204@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> On 11/09/2009, at 9:44 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> This was discussed in the Stockholm meeting; people agreed with this 
>>> general approach.
>>> Revised proposal:
>>> ---8<---
>>> * Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation
>>> It is sometimes necessary to determine the identify of the resource 
>>> associated with a representation.
>>
>> s/identify/identity/
>>
>>> An HTTP request representation, when present, is always associated 
>>> with an anonymous (i.e., unidentified) resource.
>>> In the common case, an HTTP response is a representation of the 
>>> resource located at the request-URI. However, this is not always the 
>>> case. To determine the URI of the resource a response is associated 
>>> with, the following rules are used (first match winning):
>>> 1) If the response status code is 200 or 203 and the request method 
>>> was GET, the response is a representation of the resource at the 
>>> request-URI.
>>> 2) If the response status is 204, 206, or 304 and the request method 
>>> was GET or HEAD, the response is a partial representation of the 
>>> resource at the request-URI (see [ref to section on combining partial 
>>> responses in p6]).
>>
>> Section 2.7 of [Part6] (I think)
>>
>>> 3) If the response has a Content-Location header, and that URI is the 
>>> same as the request-URI (see [ref]), the response is a representation 
>>> of the resource at the request-URI.
>>> 4) If the response has a Content-Location header, and that URI is not 
>>> the same as the request-URI, the response asserts that it is a 
>>> representation of the resource at the Content-Location URI (but it 
>>> may not be).
>>> 5) Otherwise, the response is a representation of an anonymous (i.e., 
>>> unidentified) resource.
>>> --->8---
>>> Suggested placement: a new section, either p2 6.1 or p3 3.3.
>>
>> I think P2 6.1 makes a lot of sense, proposed (partial, see below) 
>> patch: 
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/110/110.diff>. 
> ...

I have a reference to the "Request-URI" ticket 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/196>), and submitted 
the change with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/695>.

 > ...

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 12:14:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:10 GMT