Re: Change Proposal 25 for HttpRange-14

What's the difference between this and Content-Location (which I believe 
Ian suggested a year or two ago)?

Best, Nathan

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> Jonathan,
> 
> I have written the below idea up as a change proposal 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/ChangeProposal25
> 
> The number "25" has no semantics.
> 
> Tim
> 
> On 2012-03 -25, at 12:35, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> 
>> [...]  the basic idea of giving a way of the server making it
>> explicit that the URI identifies not the document but is subject, without the internet round-trip time of 303,
>> is a useful path to go down.
>>
>> If Ian Davis and co would be happy with it, how about a header
>>
>> 	200 OK
>> 	Document:  foo123476;doc=yes
>>
>> which means "Actually the URI you gave is not the URI of a this document,
>> but the URI of this document is  foo123476.html (a relative URI).
>>
>> - This is the same as doing a 301 to foo123476.html and returning the same content.
>> - Non-data clients will ignore it, and just show users the page anyway.
>> - Saves the round trip time of 301
>> - Avoids having the same URI for the document and its subject.
>>
>> This will dismantle HTTP range-14 a bit more, but still never give the same
>> URI to two things.  It would mean code changes to my client code and just a reconfig
>> change to Ian's server. 
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 17:54:32 UTC