- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:10:19 -0800
- To: David Robinson <drtr1@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
>> > Why distinguish message
>> > headers from other retrieval contexts?
>>
>>It does not. Message headers ARE the retrieval context -- the document
>>is encapsulated inside the message.
>
> But it does! You talk about retrieval context in section 3.3, but a base URL
> within message headers is mentioned in section 3.2. The implication, for a
> casual reader, is that message headers are not retrieval context. This is also
> shown graphically, with a box between the two. Hence, as Owen Rees assumed, the
> relative priority of message headers and document content was chosen
> arbitrarily.
>
> I was trying to suggest that the base URL in message headers should be
> explained as simply another example of retrieval context.
Ah, you are quite right -- I had come to that conclusion in writing the
description of composite media types, but the concept did not get fully
represented in the spec. I will try to find a way to reword section 3
such that "retrieval context" is used consistantly.
......Roy Fielding ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine USA
<fielding@ics.uci.edu>
<URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding>
Received on Friday, 10 February 1995 23:17:02 UTC