W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Clarification on use of Content-Location header

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 12:36:15 -0700
Cc: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A33580FA-8843-4EF4-BAEC-A20B640FCF2D@gbiv.com>
To: "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org>
On May 14, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:

> A few clarifications.
> In use case (2) I was using the word "proxy" loosely in the sense of gateway rather than an HTTP proxy, sorry for the confusion.
> In use case (3) I guess the point I was trying to make was that section 14.14 makes a statement that has an implicit assumption: "Future requests MAY specify the Content-Location URI as the request-URI if the desire is to identify the source of that particular entity." The assumption in that statement is that the URI in the Content-Location header is dereferencable. For example, is a URN scheme URI, an info scheme URI or tag scheme URI allowed in a Content-Location header?  If so, then a user agent cannot make future requests since those URI schemes cannot be dereferenced. Perhaps additional clarification and guidance could be added to the standard.

All schemes are dereferenceable, including urn, info, and tag.
Specific resources might not be (just like for http).

Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 19:37:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC