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

RE: Clarifying Content-Location (Issue 136)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:58:43 -0500
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Robert Brewer'" <fumanchu@aminus.org>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101ca4641$ae86f860$0b94e920$@org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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).

I don't get what you mean. Are you saying it is OK to use the same
Content-Location for multiple variants of the same resource? If so, then
what is the point of Content-Location? And, in particular, what is the point
of saying that servers SHOULD return Content-Location when there are
multiple variants, if the Content-Location of those variants could all be
the same as the Request-URI?

- Brian
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 04:59:12 UTC

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