- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:57:45 -0500
- To: "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "'Stefan Eissing'" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'HT TP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > 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? > > It's a protocol expectation as well, very visible in the > cache model, so yes if people really think this can be > misunderstood then yes it should be clarified that the > Content-Location URI SHOULD NOT be a negotiated resource. > > (it doesn't need to be a MUST imho) Because the cache doesn't dereference the resource identified by the Content-Location, it doesn't really matter if that resource is negotiated or not. To optimize the performance of caches, there are really two things you need to do: (1) Multiple variants of a resource SHOULD NOT have the same Content-Location (to prevent unnecessary invalidations), and (2) each entity (representation) of each variant of a resource SHOULD have the same Content-Location (to cause invalidations to happen as soon as possible). Regards, Brian
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 19:58:28 UTC