- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:04:55 -0500 (EST)
- To: timbl@w3.org (Tim Berners-Lee)
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> http2://www.w3.org/foo could be defined to have return codes > "Here is the contents of x which is a document" and "Here is some > information about x" > so that as a superset of HTTP it could provide a space in which > abstract objects existed. > > But http1.1 does not have that and that fact is a useful one to record, I > think It's very useful. But isn't this relationship between these two resources exactly what Content-Location asserts? That's my understanding, though I acknowledge that RFC 2616 fails to capture it well. For example, in 14.14, it says; "[...]resource location for the entity enclosed in the message" We need a new name for this thing. How about "variant resource"? DanC and I are talking about this offline; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Mar/0040.html MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 11:00:08 UTC