- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:01:43 +0200
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-09-05 11:51, Yves Lafon wrote: > On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Julian Reschke wrote: > >>> In LDP applications, these calls are more like RPC than like displaying >>> a web-page, so milliseconds might possibly count more than they do in >>> more common existing applications. >>> ... >> >> It that's the problem, have you considered to tweak 303 to actually >> return the representation of the "other" resource (using a new Prefer >> option?)? >> >> GET / HTTP/1.1 >> Prefer: contents-of-related >> >> HTTP/1.1 303 SEE OTHER >> Location: /other >> Preference-Applied: contents-of-related >> ... >> >> (representation of /other) > > From 7231: > << > Except for responses to a HEAD request, the representation of a 303 > response ought to contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to > the same URI reference provided in the Location header field. >>> > So tweaking 303 to return the content of Location: would be weird, even > with the introduction of a new conneg header. I believe you're reading too much into the "ought to". If the client clearly says "give me the representation of the 'other' resource", then the server ought to be able to do that. (pun intended) Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 10:02:23 UTC