Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:
Wrong question, correct question is "if I 200 OK will people think this
is a
document", to which the answer is yes. You're toucan is a :Document.
That assertion would be wrong if the response contained a
Content-Location header pointing to the specific document resource.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/154
Sorry, I don't follow. How is that relevant here?
I said, if you 200 OK to </toucan> then it's a document.
You said not if you include a Content-Location ("The value of
Content-Location also defines the base URI for the entity" as per RFC-2616)
So I pointed to the ticket that said that's been removed from HTTP-bis
and I'd point you to:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-12#section-6.7
"For a GET or HEAD request, this is an
indication that the effective request URI identifies a resource that
is subject to content negotiation and the representation selected for
this response can also be found at the identified URI."
As in under HTTP-bis (which is to clarify RFC2616) then what you
asserted is wrong and what I asserted is correct.. if I understood your
point that is.
Unless of course you're going down the it's a message, not a document,
and the message payload is a representation of the requested resource
route - in which case, meh that's the representation of the document, so
still true.
Any clarifications / corrections?
Best,
Nathan
