- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 17:41:45 -0800
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com
> Variant-set: id=l1;l1abcdef, id=l2;l2abcdef
>
> which is a lot less than 925 bytes!
On the other hand, it also doesn't say anything useful. The primary
purpose of the URI header field is to inform the user of the existence
of other resources associated with that resource. In other words,
it's usefulness as a content negotiation feature is only one reason
why it would be in the header fields. Adding another feature like
Variant-set (or, similar to what I originally proposed:
Condition: 304 if {eq {Content-ID "<hljegdjh@fred>"}}
does not remove the need for the user to know what other URIs are
associated with that resource, and thus does not save you those 925 bytes.
> (*) Note that 302 responses are never cachable under the current 1.1
> draft, but this can (will?) change.
They are cachable in the current HTTP/1.1 draft if indicated by a
Cache-Control or Expires header field (page 44 on 302).
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Thursday, 8 February 1996 02:01:35 UTC