- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:05:58 +0000
- To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
- CC: Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>, public-lod@w3.org
Ian Davis wrote: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> Mike Kelly wrote: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#page-14 >> snipped and fuller version inserted: >> >> 4. If the response has a Content-Location header field, and that URI >> is not the same as the effective request URI, then the response >> asserts that its payload is a representation of the resource >> identified by the Content-Location URI. However, such an >> assertion cannot be trusted unless it can be verified by other >> means (not defined by HTTP). >> >>> If a client wants to make a statement about the specific document >>> then a response that includes a content-location is giving you the >>> information necessary to do that correctly. It's complemented and >>> further clarified in the entity body itself through something like >>> isDescribedBy. >> I stand corrected, think there's something in this, and it could maybe >> possibly provide the semantic indirection needed when Content-Location is >> there, and different to the effective request uri, and complimented by some >> statements (perhaps RDF in the body, or Link header, or html link element) >> to assert the same. >> >> Covers a few use-cases, might have legs (once HTTP-bis is a standard?). >> >> Nicely caught Mike! > > +1 This is precisely what we need. The jury's still you on this one though, see: http://markmail.org/message/u4yctkaj2i3pms2o
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2010 13:07:18 UTC