Subject: i69: Requested Variant - moving forward

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:58:25 +1100

There's been a lot of discussion on i69, and while we've made some  
progress, it may be to complex to solve as one issue.

The threads that I see being productive to work on are (roughly in  
order?):

1) Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology (possibly  
ditching at least one) [new issue]

2) Remove 'requested variant' terminology from sections that don't  
really need it (possibly as part of a rewrite). [new issue, or just  
part of i69]

3) Clarify "requested variant" or define an new term for the remaining  
uses. [what is currently i69]

4) Clarify what a response carries WRT representations / entities,  
taking into account status codes, Content-Location, etc. [new issue]

5) Define what the metadata (e.g., ETag) in a response is associated  
with, when a) it has a Content-Location, or b) isn't associated with  
an identified resource (as per #2) [what is currently i22]

Make sense?

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/