- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:12:13 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'Robert Brewer' <fumanchu@aminus.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I don't think a new issue is necessary; IMO it's a stretch to say that the 2616 text requires servers to have separate URIs for different variants, and certainly that wasn't in 2068 (see issue text). What we need is a clear proposal for this issue that wraps up dicussion to date. On 28/09/2009, at 5:26 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> Secondly, why SHOULD servers identify every variant with a URL? I >> agree that >> they MAY do so, but why SHOULD? Especially, if a resource varies >> only on >> Content-Encoding, why SHOULD a server provide three URLs for it? >> Besides the >> base URI issue, it reduces cache efficiency if anybody actually >> requests the >> resource through the Content-Location URLs. It also complicates the >> management of the URL space on the server. Yet, there's no benefit >> to be >> gained from the added costs. > > That's a good point, in particular because of Content-Encoding. I > propose that we discuss this as a separate issue (Mark, are you ok > with opening a separate one for this?) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 04:12:49 UTC