- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:11:32 -0800
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 05/02/2008, at 5:20 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote: > > tor 2008-01-31 klockan 09:55 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham: > >> I find this just plain weird. On POST responses, it implies that you >> can negotiate for response headers on another resource and get them >> tunnelled back in the current response. If there's a Vary header >> present, does it apply to that resource too? If not, how do you know >> what the requested variant really was? > > Content-Location, except that you can not blindly trust it due to > security implications... and we have already agreed that URIs > indicated > by Content-Location SHOULD NOT be subject to server driven content > negotiation. Layering content negotiation ontop of those quickly leads > to recursive madness. That implies that the response is a representation of the "other" resource, which is often not desirable. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 15:11:43 UTC