- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:03:31 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Closing #110; we can tweak the language editorially as necessary later (e.g., when the representation/entity language is rationalised). On 16/09/2009, at 10:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 04:04:04 UTC