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 16:26:30 +1100
Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Robert Brewer'" <fumanchu@aminus.org>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <12DBE13A-74E9-4C45-9331-CCA5576A6EEF@mnot.net>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
I'm saying that I agree with dropping:

"In addition, a server SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the  
resource corresponding to the response entity."

which is proposed in the issue text.



On 06/10/2009, at 3:58 PM, Brian Smith wrote:

> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 05:27:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:12 GMT