- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:30:51 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/69> > > Is the text below the solution for i69? I don't think so: 1) It's not sufficient; with PROPFIND, REPORT and many other methods the request body would need to be taken into account as well. 2) I'm not entirely sure why we can't define the requested variant to be the same for all methods; as far as I understand this is what implementations do today. > Is it necessary to refer to PROPFIND (Personally, I'd like to avoid the > informative ref if we can)? > > What about changing the name? The proposal seems to change the concept > substantially, and it's currently stuck in my head as a > thing-on-the-wire, not a thing-on-the-server. Perhaps "variant resource"? I think Roy's proposal is indeed a semantic change, and I'm not comfortable with that change so far. That being said, the problem in "requested variant" is the term "requested" -- for instance, when I PUT, I'm not really "requesting" a variant. "Variant resource" sounds better, but may be confusing as well. Can a "variant resource" have multiple variants? I think so :-). BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 23 December 2007 13:31:15 UTC