Hi James, I notice that this draft expired a few days ago. Are you still planning on persuing it? If so, it'd be good to motivate the document, as per Roy's comment <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011JanMar/0294.html>. A few suggestions: > Note that the application of a preference by the server MAY affect > the caching characteristics of the response. It'd be good to mention Vary here explicitly. > 3. The Preference-Applied Response Header I'm not sure this is necessary, as the application of the preference should be obvious in the response, no? > The "return-accepted" token indicates that the client prefers that > the server respond with a 202 Accepted response indicating that the > request has been accepted for processing. I think the use case here is that a 202 is preferred *if* the response takes too long to generate, by some arbitrary measure (under control of the server), not that the 202 is unconditionally preferred over a 200 (for example). If so, it'd be good to explain. > 5. The "return-content" Preference I think this needs to explain that if the response isn't normally a representation of the resource, you need to include a Content-Location header with the resource's URI (see the httpbis drafts). Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 03:06:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:26 UTC