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

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  


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

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