- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:51:15 -0800
- To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 14, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Robert Siemer wrote: > > That inter-method-dependency is unacceptable. You say that the server > may even select a representation based on whatever it wants, but it > can't make it method dependend? No, that isn't what we are talking about. We are trying to find a way to describe just one of the set of values (representations) that are current for a given resource and then use that name to indicate other requirements having to do with etags, other methods, etc. Personally, I would prefer to just rewrite the sections so that they make sense without knowing anything about the implementation behind the interface. But that requires serious thought and a lot less emails to read. ... > So I would define the "selected representation" as: "The > representation > selected by the server based on request headers and/or other factors." Then you would be talking about the payload within the response, not the (formally known as "requested variant") that is the topic of this discussion. > Roy, do you mean that all response entities are "representations"? Yes. See <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/ rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_2_1_2> ....Roy
Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 01:51:27 UTC