- From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:52:07 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Moore, Jonathan (CIM)" <Jonathan_Moore@comcast.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2011-12-08 18:56, James Snell wrote: >> >> Ok, a new draft has been published. >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-07.txt >> >> After discussing caching issues with Mark in detail, I've made a >> number of important changes to the draft... specifically, it is >> important to point out that Prefer was always intended to be a >> behavior-negotiation mechanism, not content-negotiation. While the >> application of a behavioral preference could potentially impact the >> construction of a response, implementations should avoid utilizing >> preferences in a way that causes a variance in the caching of a >> response. For that reason, I added a new short section detailing cache >> considerations and removed the detail preference. Basically, if you're >> using Prefer for content-negotiation, you're likely doing it wrong. > > > Not convinced. Where's the difference? If the response without "Prefer" > would have been cacheable, and the presence of the Prefer header field > changes the response I receive, how is that *not* content negotiation? > > I tend to view it more as behavior negotiation but it is definitely a grey area. Going to be thinking this through a bit more.
Received on Monday, 12 December 2011 21:52:38 UTC