#110 closed design (fixed)
Clarify rules for determining what entities a response carries
Reported by: | mnot@… | Owned by: | fielding@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | urgent | Milestone: | unassigned |
Component: | non-specific | Severity: | Active WG Document |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
A response can carry a representation/entity of the resource identified by the request-uri, but it can also carry an entity associated with a different resource, as per the Content-Location header, or it may even carry an "anonymous" representation that isn't associated with a URI (a.k.a. a "status message").
The rules for determining this should be clarified in the specification.
Attachments (1)
Change History (9)
comment:1 Changed 14 years ago by mnot@…
- Priority set to blocked
comment:2 Changed 14 years ago by mnot@…
- Owner set to fielding@…
- Priority changed from blocked to urgent
- Severity set to Active WG Document
comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by mnot@…
Above approach discussed at Stockholm WG meeting; general agreement that it's roughly the right approach. Waiting for more refined proposals (possibly including new terminology).
comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:6 Changed 13 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:7 Changed 13 years ago by fielding@…
From [856]:
Addresses #69: Clarify "Requested Variant" Addresses #109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology
Replaced entity with payload and variant with representation. Cleaned up description of 204 status code (related to ticket #22) Rewrote section on Content-Location and refer to def in RFC2557.
Addresses #110: Clarify rules for determining what entities a response carries
Detail the rules for Content-Location and remove the cross-ref.
Addresses #167: Content-Location on 304 responses
Removed sentence in C-Loc that refers to using C-Loc to select a
variant from cache (an already removed "feature")
Addresses #136: confusing req. language for Content-Location
Removed the confusing paragraph because HTTP does not know anything about variants behind the resource interface and thus cannot make this an interop requirement. In any case, it only existed to support the already removed cache feature that nobody implemented.
Addresses #80: Content-Location isn't special
Clarifies that C-Loc is representation metadata and what (not) to do with it if received on a request.
See: