- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 19:36:22 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Graham Klyne: > >At 07:59 PM 7/14/97 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote: [...] >>No, this looks about right, though I would add >> >> feature-set --> ftag > >I cannot find a syntax production for feature-set in your draft. There is none, I drew the arrow to mean `uses'. Feature sets are an important concept in the draft, but as they never appear on the wire, there are no syntax rules for them. >>>* Section 8.4: >>> >>>Are there any circumstances in which a response from a transparently >>>negotiable resource is not required to include an 'Alternates:' header? >> >>Yes. If the response is an error, list or adhoc response, Alternates >>need not be included. > >Aha! So Normal and Choice responses containing a transparently negotiated >resource are required to carry an 'Alternates' header? A transparently negotiated resource may never send a normal response (see the table in section 12.1), but you are right about the choice response. >GK. Koen.
Received on Saturday, 19 July 1997 10:41:15 UTC