- From: Marc Salomon <marc@gaia.ckm.ucsf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:03:18 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@www10.w3.org
WEBDAVers, Couldn't make the mtg in Irvine, but I have a question about draft-0.6. Is there a rationale for defining complementary MIME types for requests and responses to a method besides the ability to unambiguously determine the nature of the message out of context? Are you that much more likely to retain the C-T header than the HTTP request/response line? If a lock request is in the form of: LOCK foo HTTP/1.x Content-Type: application/lock [lock request entity] and the response is in the form of: HTTP/1.x 20x OK Content-Type: application/lockresult [lock response body] The main reason that I can see for creating MIME types for request and reponse is that you are missing the HTTP request or status lines but manage to keep the Content-Type header value around. Contrast this to the message/http content type that doesn't need to a separate IMT for the request and reponse as its form is unambiguous. -marc --
Received on Thursday, 30 January 1997 15:53:27 UTC