Re: Deprecate Content-Location? (was RE: "Variant" language in Content-Location (Issue 109))

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> 5. What does "might be individually accessed" mean? As far as cache
>>> validation is concerned (which is the only time Content-Location is used in
>>> the protocol itself), the Content-Location doesn't have to be accessible.
>>> That whole condition can be removed since it is meaningless.
>> What's the point in supplying a Content-Location, if nobody can access it?
> Could it be like XML namespace URIs - to provide a unique identifier
> that is not necessarily meant to be an accessible resource?

In theory, yes. Does this happen in practice? Do we want it to happen in 

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 12:48:34 UTC