- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:26:30 +1100
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Robert Brewer'" <fumanchu@aminus.org>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm saying that I agree with dropping: "In addition, a server SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the resource corresponding to the response entity." which is proposed in the issue text. On 06/10/2009, at 3:58 PM, Brian Smith wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> 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). > > I don't get what you mean. Are you saying it is OK to use the same > Content-Location for multiple variants of the same resource? If so, > then > what is the point of Content-Location? And, in particular, what is > the point > of saying that servers SHOULD return Content-Location when there are > multiple variants, if the Content-Location of those variants could > all be > the same as the Request-URI? > > - Brian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 05:27:07 UTC