- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:08:51 +1000
- To: Nicolas Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Totally; we just need to be crisp about it. My inclination would be that if we can be more inclusive without making it significantly more complex or risky, we should; otherwise, just do what's needed. Cheers, On 01/09/2009, at 1:49 PM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote: > 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"? > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 07:09:31 UTC