- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:13:33 +0000
- 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. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 15:09:01 UTC