Re: Clarifying Content-Location (Issue 136)

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