Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation

Julian Reschke writes:

> On 2013-11-04 17:53, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> ...
> Reactive conneg isn't just about 300s and 406s. Another example would
> be a representation returned with a 200 response that contains links
> to alternate versions of the content. That's what the

How is this in scope for discussion _in the HTTP spec._?  People (not
user agents, note) use 200 responses for a huge range of interesting,
powerful, innovative things.  We don't look in the HTTP spec. to find
a discussion of them.

> "If the user agent is not satisfied by the initial response
> representation, it can perform a GET request on one or more of the
> alternative resources, selected based on metadata included in the
> list, to obtain a different form of representation for that
> response. Selection of alternatives might be performed automatically
> by the user agent or manually by the user selecting from a generated
> (possibly hypertext) menu."

"based on metadata included in the list"!  That's a specific reference
to a 300 response.  There is no "list" in a 200 response, not that a
user agent can detect anyway.

And, as I said in the last message, I'm not aware of _any_ user agent
that does _anything_ specific to 300 responses.

       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail:
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 12:19:09 UTC