W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: PROPFIND vs. Accept: vs. variants

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:25:50 -0400
To: Wim Lewis <wiml@omnigroup.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAEAFA0D9.A0B72FF5-ON85257879.00495609-85257879.0049C6BA@us.ibm.com>

WRT the "related question", the first interpretation is correct.

A server is allowed to associate multiple URLs with the same resource, and
in particular, may chose to do so to have a different "default
representation" that is provided when the client requests a resource with
no Accept header.


w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 04/20/2011 05:07:01 PM:

> From: Wim Lewis <wiml@omnigroup.com>
> ...
> A related question, in the context of rfc4918 section 5, is how
> variant resources are modeled in terms of segment-to-resource
> mapping. My initial understanding was that the 'foo' path segment
> mapped to a single resource, whose content and properties varied
> based on content negotiation. The fact that the resource didn't
> correspond to a particular disk file was an implementation detail
> and unimportant.
> The other interpretation is that the 'foo' segment maps to different
> resources depending on content negotiation. This seems to be the
> approach that Apache is taking, since in each case the PROPFIND
> response indicates the more-canonical URL for the resource whose
> properties are returned. rfc4918 states "it is illegal to have the
> same path segment mapped to more than one resource", but it is only
> mapped to one resource during any given request, so perhaps that is OK.
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 13:27:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:39 UTC