- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:00:54 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/110> AFAICT the process you have to go through to figure this out is roughly (first match wins); 1) If the response status is in [200, 203] and the request method was GET, the response is a representation of the request-URI. 2) If the response status is in [204, 206, 304] and the request method was in [GET, HEAD], the response is a partial representation of the request-URI (here 'partial' meaning that it may just be entity headers). 3) If the response has a Content-Location header, and that URI is the same as the request-URI, the response is a representation of the request-URI. 4) If the response has a Content-Location header, the response asserts that it is a representation of the Content-Location URI (but it may not be). 5) Otherwise, the response is a representation of an anonymous / unidentified resource. There are some open questions here -- e.g., is a 404 a representation of that resource? (maybe). The bigger question, though, is how this affects the spec. I think the main impact -- if we can come to agreement, of course -- is on issues like <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/22>. Thoughts? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 07:01:40 UTC