- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:46:30 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On mån, 2007-07-30 at 20:19 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> this is a proposal that may build a bridge between the "hidden" Web >> (PROPFIND/REPORT/SEARCH and similar methods), and the pure Web (GET, >> cache validators). >> >> HTML and XML versions at >> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-reschke-http-get-location>. >> >> Feedback appreciated, > > > For me it would make more sense if ETag/Last-Modified was returned in > the response, and the GET location of the same response resouce was > indicated using Content-Location. The problem with returning the ETag is that ETag is defined to apply to the resource at the Request-URI, which, in this case, is incorrect, right? WRT to Content-Location: RFC2616 says in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.14>: "The Content-Location value is not a replacement for the original requested URI; it is only a statement of the location of the resource corresponding to this particular entity at the time of the request." I don't think this is the case here... > The use of Content-Location is also needed to make use of the cache > invalidation rules, allowing automatic invalidation of cached results on > modifications. I'm not sure I understand. Could you provide an example? > ... > Content-Location MAY also be included to keep the two responses completely equal apart from the status code, but is redundant. > ... Thanks for mentioning status codes, I guess we need to say something about it. > Also note that weak etags is sufficient for caching of results (end of A.1). Understood. I didn't want to mention them over here for obvious reasons :-) So, if we can fit this functionality into existing servers, that would be great. Before coming up with this particular proposal, I tried that and came to the conclusion that it didn't work well with how Content-Location is currently defined... Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 18:46:44 UTC