- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:59:04 -0700
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: "Sebastien Lambla" <seb@serialseb.com>, "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, <john.kemp@nokia.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
On Aug 7, 2008, at 7:34 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Content negotiation as defined in the HTTP spec does *not* involve > redirects. Wrong. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec12.html#sec12.2 The 300 response isn't used much because it was spottily implemented by browsers (last I checked). 302 is commonly used to direct initial visitors to language-specific subtrees. That is a form of conneg, as is any form of handling the request based on the content of the request headers instead of just the method and URI. In spite of the one-time redirect, it ends up being more efficient than varying generic resources because language has locality of reference and all of the content (including in-line images and stylesheets) are also language-dependent. HTTP provides several different techniques for conneg because each is *best* for at least some subset of resources. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 20:59:45 UTC