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

Re: Clarifying Content-Location (Issue 136)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:12:13 +1100
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'Robert Brewer' <fumanchu@aminus.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <92791332-7ECC-4631-990C-5E21D6CA50DA@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
I don't think a new issue is necessary; IMO it's a stretch to say that  
the 2616 text requires servers to have separate URIs for different  
variants, and certainly that wasn't in 2068 (see issue text).

What we need is a clear proposal for this issue that wraps up  
dicussion to date.

On 28/09/2009, at 5:26 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> Secondly, why SHOULD servers identify every variant with a URL? I  
>> agree that
>> they MAY do so, but why SHOULD? Especially, if a resource varies  
>> only on
>> Content-Encoding, why SHOULD a server provide three URLs for it?  
>> Besides the
>> base URI issue, it reduces cache efficiency if anybody actually  
>> requests the
>> resource through the Content-Location URLs. It also complicates the
>> management of the URL space on the server. Yet, there's no benefit  
>> to be
>> gained from the added costs.
> That's a good point, in particular because of Content-Encoding. I  
> propose that we discuss this as a separate issue (Mark, are you ok  
> with opening a separate one for this?)

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 04:12:49 UTC

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