Subject: Re: i69: Requested Variant - moving forward

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:56 +1100

I haven't seen any response to this, so we'll proceed and see how  
things go.

On 28/02/2008, at 3:58 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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]

<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/109>

> 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]

<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/110>

> 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]

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