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

Re: Media type for 300/406 responses?

From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:50:20 +0100
Message-ID: <a9699fd20911260050n14da97b6y3cc843731cb5d220@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have come across this[1] posting by Roy yesterday regarding the
> standardization of 300 and 406 response media types.
>
> Personal experience suggests that it would be worthwhile to draft such a
> media type but before doing so, I have a question regarding the following
> quote:
>
>  "the response SHOULD include an entity containing
>  a list of available entity characteristics and
>  location(s)" [2]
>
> So far I can see these entity characteristics:
>
> - media type
> - language
> - encoding
>
> Should I (besides extensibility) consider any other entity characteristics,
> e.g of those found in[3]? Length for example?
[...]
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1997JulSep/0054.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.7
> [3] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html#sec7.1

RFC 2295 [4] has the "length" and adds "features" (and extensibility
so other dimensions could be added in the future).
It also explicitly deals with the charset (you might have envisioned
it as part of the media-type, but just to make sure it isn't forgotten
in the end)

But actually, given the existence of RFC 2295, I wonder if there's a
need for standardizing a media-type altogether.
If you still think it's useful, then why not just borrow the
Alternates header syntax?

[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2295


-- 
Thomas Broyer
/tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 08:50:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:13 GMT