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

Re: Clarifying Content-Location (Issue 136)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:51:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4ABF9819.2010007@gmx.de>
To: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Robert Brewer wrote:
> Yes, although I don't think that quite "removes the SHOULD for the case
> where there's only one entity". Also, must we continue the tradition of

It doesn't?

> adding adverbs ad infinitum to create long, passive, run-on sentences?
> ;)
>   The "Content-Location" entity-header field supplies a URI for the
>   entity in the message when it is different than the requested
>   resource's URI. When a resource has multiple entities accessible
>   at separate locations, a server SHOULD provide a Content-Location
>   for the variant.

Yes, that's better. How about changing the end to

   ...SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the returned entity.


BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 16:52:21 UTC

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