W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 13:35:55 +0300
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1E4B592A-3A10-4299-BF8D-2CAFC15CA94F@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Right.

Also ó Content-Location is *not* a flag that conneg has happened; thatís only a use case for it.

One important point that I donít see being addressed here is that resource A is *claiming* that itís presenting a representation of resource B ó it isnít authoritative for that resource (even if theyíre on the same server). Thatís an important distinction, and itís precisely the one made by Content-Location.

Cheers,


On 5 Sep 2014, at 1:01 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 10:36:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC