- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:51:29 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 8, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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? Variants are not returned. I am happy to replace variant with the right terminology (representation) if the WG doesn't mind. That is part of what I was talking about earlier when I said that 2616 often defines things in terms of server implementation when it really should restrict itself to the visible interface. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 03:51:44 UTC