Subject: Media type for 300/406 responses?

From: Jan Algermissen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:32:17 +0100

Hi,

I have come across this[1] posting by Roy yesterday regarding the  
standardization of 300 and 406 response media types.

Personal experience suggests that it would be worthwhile to draft such  
a media type but before doing so, I have a question regarding the  
following quote:

   "the response SHOULD include an entity containing
   a list of available entity characteristics and
   location(s)" [2]

So far I can see these entity characteristics:

- media type
- language
- encoding

Should I (besides extensibility) consider any other entity  
characteristics, e.g of those found in[3]? Length for example?

Thanks,

Jan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1997JulSep/0054.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.7
[3] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html#sec7.1

---

From: Thomas Broyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:50:20 +0100

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Personal experience suggests that it would be worthwhile to draft such a
> media type but before doing so, I have a question regarding the following
> quote:
>
> Should I (besides extensibility) consider any other entity characteristics,
> e.g of those found in[3]? Length for example?
[...]
> [3] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html#sec7.1

RFC 2295 [4] has the "length" and adds "features" (and extensibility
so other dimensions could be added in the future).
It also explicitly deals with the charset (you might have envisioned
it as part of the media-type, but just to make sure it isn't forgotten
in the end)

But actually, given the existence of RFC 2295, I wonder if there's a
need for standardizing a media-type altogether.
If you still think it's useful, then why not just borrow the
Alternates header syntax?

[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2295

-- 
Thomas Broyer
/tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/

---

From: Jan Algermissen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:08:36 +0100

On Nov 26, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Thomas Broyer wrote:

>> characteristics,
> RFC 2295

Ah, yes. I had been looking at the WebDav specs but forgot to check  
elsewhere. Sorry.

> [4] has the "length" and adds "features" (and extensibility

Yes, that sound like what I want. 2295 even says:
"Responses from resources which do not support transparent content  
negotiation MAY also use Alternates headers."
So all I have to do is tell my clients to look for Alternate headers  
in 300/406 responses, IIUC.

Thanks!

Jan

> [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2295

--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen

Mail: [email-masked]
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------