W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011


From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:05:45 +0000
To: <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a72eae228070c17e9907ea8f12ac3b7d@mail.mxes.net>
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 

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).


Mark Nottingham
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