- From: Nicolas Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:49:48 -0300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Mark Nottingham wrote: > That's a good start, but it deserves a bit of discussion. > > "byte-for-byte" implies that the bodes are the same, but what about > things like: > > * Entity headers (e.g., Content-Type) > * Available content-encodings > * Whether partial content is supported > * Whether the same set of methods are supported (e.g., if A is a > duplicate of B, will POSTing something to either have the same effect > as on the other?) > > I think the answer is that entity headers should generally be the > same, so the real question is whether we're talking about the relation > describing: > > a) resources with duplicate representations (i.e., a GET on any of the > dups will return the same reps) > b) duplicate resources (i.e., any method will have the same effect) > > If it's (b), we should consider whether the resources are in fact the > same "behind the curtains" (e.g., POSTing to A has the exact same > effect on the world as POSTing to B), or whether they may be in fact > separate systems (i.e., A and B have the same "interface", but POSTing > to A may affect a different part of the world to B). Well, we're talking about static GETable resources with a single representation. But I agree that if you make a Link relation, you'd want it to be applicable to as many HTTP resources as possible... Or is it possible / reasonable to say "this relation doesn't make sense for dynamic or POSTable resources and shouldn't be used for those"?
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 03:50:46 UTC