- From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:51:49 -0600
- To: "Jamie Lokier" <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Right now, cache range operations are independent of content type. > > For the proposal, the name "items" seems too generic for something > which only works with JSON (perhaps even only JSON structured in a > particular way?). > > Unless it's understood that cache range operations on "items" must > take into account other headers such as Content-Type. I think that > would be reasonable. I certainly don't mind using a different name, if the HTTP working feels that's more appropriate. I just figured "items" might be applicable in multiple content types (applicable to content types that support a top-level array-like construct), but I understand that if it is felt to be too generic to have a real clear purpose in every situation. Maybe "array-items"? > > (Btw, one can easily imagine ranges "characters", "xpath", "xquery", > "grep"... even "session". I'm not sure if that's a desirable road to > go down. Maybe it would be very useful.) "date" ranges is the one other unit that I have felt would be useful, but "items" is certainly the most valuable alternate IMO. Kris
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 15:54:18 UTC