On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:08, Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Aryeh Gregor schrieb: >> Doesn't the use of a header here violate the idea of each URL >> representing only one resource? The server will be returning totally >> different things for a GET to the same URL. That seems like it would >> cause all sorts of problems -- not only do caching proxies break >> (which I'd think by itself makes the feature unusable for users >> behind >> caching proxies), but how do you deal with things like bookmarking, >> or >> sending a link to a particular version of the page to someone? These >> would become impossible, unless the server goes to the extra effort >> to >> return a redirect. >> >> It seems to me like a better path would be to have different URLs for >> different dates. The obvious way to do this would be to take an >> approach like OpenSearch, and provide a URL pattern in some standard >> format. Maybe the page could contain <link rel=oldversions> or such, >> with the client appending a query parameter to the given URL, say >> time=T where T is an ISO 8601 string. > > How about doing both? If a X-Datetime-Accept header is received, it > could > trigger a 302 redirect, pointing at a url that specifies the desired > point in time. This is exactly what we do in Memento and with the plug-in: datetime content negotiation (X-Accept-Datetime header) on the generic URI (say /clock in wikipedia) followed by a 302 redirect to the time- specific URI (title="clock"&oldid=123456 in wikipedia). The generic URI is always only serving the current version of the page; the history URIs are serving the history pages. Herbert > > -- daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
