- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:25:51 -0700
- To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > 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"? Range "items" is fine. It is not specific to the media type. Each resource can have its own notion of what it means to be an item boundary -- all that matters is that they be sequentially numbered from a standard start value (0 or 1) and that the items combined in order are consistent with what would have been received in a 200 response to GET. > "date" ranges is the one other unit that I have felt would be > useful, but "items" is certainly the most valuable alternate IMO. Date ranges are much harder to get right because the boundary is not clear. The typical use for such a range is to retrieve whatever has been appended to the resource state since a given time, but time units are not unique and thus require some overlap in requests and removal of duplicates. A Range unit of Since="strong-etag" would be interesting as well. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 01:26:32 UTC