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

Issue 39, was: Issues addressed by the -10 drafts

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:26:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4C49A697.2030200@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 22.07.2010 14:56, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The editors believe that the following issues have been addressed by the -10 round of drafts. See<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/15>  for details; barring objections, they'll be closed soon.
> ...

Hi,

we just figured out that an addition to P4 in -10 may allow us to close 
issue 39 as well:

2.1. Example: Entity Tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources

    Consider a resource that is subject to content negotiation (Section 4
    of [Part3]), and where the representations returned upon a GET
    request vary based on the Accept-Encoding request header field
    (Section 5.3 of [Part3]):

    >> Request:

      GET /index HTTP/1.1
      Host: www.example.com
      Accept-Encoding: gzip


    In this case, the response may use the gzip Content Coding or not.
    If it does, it might look like that:

    >> Response:

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
      ETag: "123-a"
      Content-Length: 70
      Vary: Accept-Encoding
      Content-Type: text/plain

      Hello World!
      Hello World!
      Hello World!
      Hello World!
      Hello World!

    A variant that does use gzip Content Coding would be:

    >> Response:

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
      ETag: "123-b"
      Content-Length: 43
      Vary: Accept-Encoding
      Content-Type: text/plain
      Content-Encoding: gzip

      ...binary data...

       Note: Content Codings are a property of the response entity, thus
       affect the Entity Tag. An alternative are Transfer Codings
       (Section 6.2 of [Part1]) which apply only to the transfer of the
       message, and thus do not require assigning distinct entity tags.

(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-10.html#rfc.section.2.1>)

...this essentially adds the case people were confused about as an example.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 14:27:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:23 GMT