W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2002

Re: [uriMediaType-9] New Internet Draft: Resrep Type

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:13:33 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: sean@mysterylights.com (Sean B. Palmer), www-tag@w3.org
At 02:56 PM 3/27/02 -0500, Mark Baker wrote:
>Perhaps Repr-Type could used a feature tag, but Resource-Type cannot
>because it is not an attribute of the content, it is an attribute of the
>resource that the URI identifies.  It's my understanding that
>Content-Features, as with other Content-* headers, describes resource
>representations, not the resources themselves.

Well, that's probably a reasonable position, but it's not written into the 
spec either way.

>Also, a reason to be careful of feature tags is that they circumvent
>reification in HTTP header assertions.  For example, if I wanted to say
>that the negotiated content varied by some attribute that was expressed
>as a feature tag rather than as an HTTP header, I cannot use the HTTP
>Vary header.

?  I'd suggest just use "Vary: Content-features".  This header was designed 
exactly *for* use in content negotiation.


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 15:09:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:50 UTC