One thing relating to this header and caching.

If a response contains a Content-Location header, do the other (e.g. cache control) headers relate to the original requested URI, or to the new URI specified in the Content-Location or both?

in other words, should the cache maintain 2 indices for this entity - one from the original URI and one from the Content-Location?

Or do something else?



Robert Brewer wrote:
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


Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server -