- From: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:36:30 -0700
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Robert Brewer wrote: > > Yes, although I don't think that quite "removes the SHOULD > > for the case where there's only one entity". > > It doesn't? I actually read the proposed text before reading your rationale, and I read it as SHOULD for only one entity. The word "especially" wasn't a strong enough modifier, I think. > > Also, must we continue the tradition of adding adverbs ad > > infinitum to create long, passive, run-on sentences? > > ;) > > > > The "Content-Location" entity-header field supplies a URI for the > > entity in the message when it is different than the requested > > resource's URI. When a resource has multiple entities accessible > > at separate locations, a server SHOULD provide a Content-Location > > for the variant. > > Yes, that's better. How about changing the end to > > ...SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the returned entity. Even better. I actually considered that but wasn't confident enough in my knowledge of the distinction between "entity" and "variant" to propose that change. Robert Brewer fumanchu@aminus.org
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 19:37:08 UTC