- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:17:56 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 23/07/2009, at 8:12 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > >> I agree that conneg would benefit if it were mentioned that it's >> scoped to a requested resource. > > I am sorry, but what exactly do you refer to by "requested resource" > when there is content negotiation? The resource at the target-URI, of course. All I'm saying is that when you're talking about selecting a representation to send in a response* when connect is in use, the pool of possible representations is bounded by those associated with / belonging to the requested resource. * What p6 2.6 currently calls the "selected response", although I suspect that may eventually need to change if we're to properly address the terminology issue. >> All of that said, I'd very much like to see us take a systematic >> approach to determining the scope (server/resource/representation/ >> response/etc.) of metadata in the spec, because IME it's often been >> misinterpreted, and sometimes led to interop problems. > > Which at the heart is what this is all about. Agreed. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 22:18:38 UTC