- From: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:15:14 -0800
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 06/02/2009, at 11:40 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > > Thus an entity in a 404 response, or in a PUT or POST request, would > > not be called a representation, but other entities wouldn't. There > > is no reason to redefine 'representation' unnecessarily introducing > > confusion with other specifications. > > That's a discussion that's probably worth having. My understanding of > Roy's position (I'm sure he'll correct anything I get wrong) is that a > PUT response (for example) is a representation of *some* resource, > it's just not the resource identified by the request-URI (unless it > happens to have a matching Content-Location, of course). In that > sense, it's representing the state of an anonymous resource. I've also heard him say that "the response body sent with a 404 status is a representation of a 404 response." [1] Robert Brewer fumanchu@aminus.org [1] http://markmail.org/message/54jr3v2s5uy7jjzx
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 19:15:52 UTC