W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: draft-snell-http-prefer

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:10:53 -0700
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <3DF78593-DBB1-4894-8D24-144E841FC956@gbiv.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:56 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> Noted and agreed.. but that's not quite what's going on with the Prefer header here. The return-representation preference merely indicates to the server that the UA would like the server to return a representation of the resource within the response vs. a representation of the request status. What's missing is some indicator within the response as to which the server is actually returning. There is some ambiguity that needs to be resolved. All the Preference-Applied header does is provide an explicit indicator that the server did, in fact, do as the UA asked and returned the resource representation in the response... an indicator that is only necessary if it's not obvious by the content type of the payload or by direct examination of the payload. 

In that case, there is no need for it.  A Content-Location field with
the same value as the effective request URI means that the preference
has been applied.  See

http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/21/p2-semantics.html#header.content-location

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 06:11:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 17 October 2012 06:11:11 GMT