Changeset 2562

Timestamp:

19/01/14 03:22:35 (7 years ago)

Author:

fielding@…

Message:

(editorial) explain why 300 does not have a defined format and describe how it is typically implemented in practice; addresses #548

Location:

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest

Files:

• p2-semantics.html (modified) (1 diff)
• p2-semantics.xml (modified) (1 diff)

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

@@ -2731 +2731 @@
                </p>
                <p id="rfc.section.6.4.1.p.3">For request methods other than HEAD, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> generate a payload in the 300 response containing a list of representation metadata and URI reference(s) from which the user
-                  or user agent can choose the one most preferred. The user agent <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> make a selection from that list automatically, depending upon the list format, but this specification does not define a standard
-                  for such automatic selection.
+                  or user agent can choose the one most preferred. The user agent <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> make a selection from that list automatically if it understands the provided media type. A specific format for automatic selection
+                  is not defined by this specification because HTTP tries to remain orthogonal to the definition of its payloads. In practice,
+                  the representation is provided in some easily parsed format believed to be acceptable to the user agent, as determined by
+                  shared design or content negotiation, or in some commonly accepted hypertext format.
                </p>
                <p id="rfc.section.6.4.1.p.4">A 300 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml

@@ -3097 +3097 @@
    reference(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most
    preferred. The user agent &MAY; make a selection from that list
-   automatically, depending upon the list format, but this specification does
-   not define a standard for such automatic selection.
+   automatically if it understands the provided media type. A specific format
+   for automatic selection is not defined by this specification because HTTP
+   tries to remain orthogonal to the definition of its payloads.
+   In practice, the representation is provided in some easily parsed format
+   believed to be acceptable to the user agent, as determined by shared design
+   or content negotiation, or in some commonly accepted hypertext format.
 </t>
 <t>