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

RE: Clarifying Content-Location (Issue 136)

From: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:36:30 -0700
Message-ID: <F1962646D3B64642B7C9A06068EE1E640A5327DB@ex10.hostedexchange.local>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Robert Brewer wrote:
> > Yes, although I don't think that quite "removes the SHOULD
> > for the case where there's only one entity".
> 
> It doesn't?

I actually read the proposed text before reading your rationale, and I
read it as SHOULD for only one entity. The word "especially" wasn't a
strong enough modifier, I think.

> > Also, must we continue the tradition of 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.

Even better. I actually considered that but wasn't confident enough in
my knowledge of the distinction between "entity" and "variant" to
propose that change.


Robert Brewer
fumanchu@aminus.org
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 19:37:08 GMT

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