Re: draft-snell-http-prefer

Hi James,

That would obviously work.  Is reusing the Vary header not a good idea?


James M Snell wrote:
> A much older version of the specification included an optional 
> Preference-Applied response header that could explicitly indicate 
> whether a particular preference was applied, but after lots of feedback 
> that "I wasn't going to need it", I pulled it back out (largely against 
> my better judgement). I'm thinking that perhaps it needs to be added 
> back in. 
> 
> - James
> 
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu 
> <mailto:murch@andrew.cmu.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello,
> 
>     I'm working on draft draft-murchison-webdav-prefer which describes
>     how the return-minimal and return-representation apply to
>     WebDAV/CalDAV methods.  My work is primarily CalDAV-centric but we
>     are trying to make it generic to WebDAV and its derivatives.
> 
>     One of the issues that keeps coming up is a way for the client to
>     differentiate between two  cases:
> 
>     - the server doesn't return a representation because it ignored or
>     doesn't support the return-representation preference
> 
>     - the server understood the preference but didn't return a
>     representation because it didn't change from what was in the request
> 
>     One possible solution is for the server to return a Vary: Prefer
>     header to indicate that the server understood the preference,
>     thereby allowing the client to infer what the lack of a
>     representation in the response means.
> 
>     The next question is, does any such mandate or recommendation, if
>     required, belong in my webdav-prefer draft or in the base Prefer spec?
> 
>     Thoughts?
> 
>     -- 
>     Kenneth Murchison
>     Principal Systems Software Engineer
>     Carnegie Mellon University
> 
> 


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 15:15:12 UTC