Re: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109)

• From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
• Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:20:10 +0200
• To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
• Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <3C197F10-014F-49A0-9C59-AAF61C740458@greenbytes.de>

Am 05.08.2008 um 21:54 schrieb Julian Reschke:
> [...]
>
> So if I had to rewrite this I would make it just:
>
>    The Content-Location entity-header field may be used to supply the
>    resource location for the entity enclosed in the message. In the  
> case
>    where a resource has multiple entities associated with it, and  
> those
>    entities actually have separate locations by which they might be
>    individually accessed, the server SHOULD provide a Content-Location
>    for the particular variant which is returned.
>
> (BCP14fying the should, dropping the last sentence)

I totally agree.

Is there a need to express the client's expectation that the "Content- 
Location" URL will only have a single entity associated with it? Or  
is a client expected to follow "Content-Location"s for a number of  
times?

//Stefan

--
<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 07:20:50 UTC