- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:39:16 +1100
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Henrik mentioned a counterproposal in passing: > The "requested variant" is pretty clear. The variant returned had the > request been a GET request, or in case of the ETag returned by PUT a > GET > request immediately after completion of the PUT. I've seen at least one other person agree (assumedly after appropriate wordsmithing). Roy, thoughts? On 28/12/2007, at 9:49 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> variant >>> The ultimate target resource of a request after indirections >>> caused by content negotiation (varying by request fields) and >>> method association (e.g., PROPFIND) have been taken into account. >>> Some variant resources may also be identified directly by their >>> own URI, which may be indicated by a Content-Location in the >>> response. > > When a variant is identified by its own URI indicated by > Content-Location, and keeping in mind that target of a request may > depend on request method and other things, _how_ is that > Content-Location URI supposed to be used? > > Does it mean GET should be used with the Content-Location URI to fetch > that specific variant, while other methods cannot be depended upon to > access the specific variant (particularly if the specific variant was > originally selected dependent on request method)? If so, the unique > role of GET on Content-Location URIs should be made clear. > > -- Jamie > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 06:39:29 UTC