W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Content-Location q

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:45:24 +0000
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2E5BE0D0-4DF5-413F-A11E-C96F9C2B4E72@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

On 26 Jan 2011, at 01:55, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I think it should be 'a current representation' -- i.e. that it shouldn't be read to constrain cardinality.
> 
> Anyone else?
> 

Makes sense to me and it would align the wording with section 6.1 of p3.

Ben

> 
> On 22/01/2011, at 4:32 AM, Nathan wrote:
> 
>> 
>>  If Content-Location is included in a response message and its value
>>  is the same as the effective request URI, then the response payload
>>  SHOULD be considered the current representation of that resource.
>> 
>> Just sanity checking my understanding of the above, that at that instant there is one, and only one, resource representation associated with the resource identified by the effective request URI. Not in some strange philosophical sense, but in the sense that no form of negotiation could have resulted in any other resource representation being sent by the origin server (for instance no possibility that negotiation over the accept header could have provided a different representation).
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Nathan
>> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 10:45:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:36 GMT