- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:13:02 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 11/09/2009, at 9:44 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> This was discussed in the Stockholm meeting; people agreed with this >>> general approach. >>> Revised proposal: >>> ---8<--- >>> * Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation >>> It is sometimes necessary to determine the identify of the resource >>> associated with a representation. >> >> s/identify/identity/ >> >>> An HTTP request representation, when present, is always associated >>> with an anonymous (i.e., unidentified) resource. >>> In the common case, an HTTP response is a representation of the >>> resource located at the request-URI. However, this is not always the >>> case. To determine the URI of the resource a response is associated >>> with, the following rules are used (first match winning): >>> 1) If the response status code is 200 or 203 and the request method >>> was GET, the response is a representation of the resource at the >>> request-URI. >>> 2) If the response status is 204, 206, or 304 and the request method >>> was GET or HEAD, the response is a partial representation of the >>> resource at the request-URI (see [ref to section on combining partial >>> responses in p6]). >> >> Section 2.7 of [Part6] (I think) >> >>> 3) If the response has a Content-Location header, and that URI is the >>> same as the request-URI (see [ref]), the response is a representation >>> of the resource at the request-URI. >>> 4) If the response has a Content-Location header, and that URI is not >>> the same as the request-URI, the response asserts that it is a >>> representation of the resource at the Content-Location URI (but it >>> may not be). >>> 5) Otherwise, the response is a representation of an anonymous (i.e., >>> unidentified) resource. >>> --->8--- >>> Suggested placement: a new section, either p2 6.1 or p3 3.3. >> >> I think P2 6.1 makes a lot of sense, proposed (partial, see below) >> patch: >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/110/110.diff>. > ... I have a reference to the "Request-URI" ticket (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/196>), and submitted the change with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/695>. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 12:14:02 UTC