- From: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:35:50 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote, > I don't like GET+Meta because I feel it violates a good practice > suggestion of Webarch; > > "Consistent representations: It is confusing and costly when, for a > given URI, representations vary in unpredictable ways." > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-rep-ambiguity I don't think it does violate that principle: the representations vary in an entirely predictable way as a result of cooperation between the client and server. As far as representations go, this isn't significantly different from vanilla content negotiation. > And moreover, if representations were to vary in the way that > GET+Meta requires, that suggests to me that we're dealing with two > resources, not one. Hence my preference for the response header > solution, which uses two URIs. We _are_ talking about two resources ... that's the whole point. The Meta: request header and Meta-Location: response header are acting as disambiguators: between a resource and a related metadata resource. Cheers, Miles
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 14:36:25 UTC