Subject: 3 short questions, Entity Tag & Content Location

From: Nathan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:57:46 +0000

Hi All,

Q1, Can Content-Location be used in the response to a GET or HEAD with
any of the 2XX status codes?

Q2, If I have the same data serialized in two different ways (as in an
RDF graph serialized as N3 and as RDF+XML), and those serializations are
accessible via a single resource (via a 302 Found + Content-Location);
could they share a weak entity tag?

Q3, are there any circumstance where they could share a weak entity tag?

ps: is this the correct mailing list for questions such as this?

Many Regards,

Nathan

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:50:18 +0100

> any of the 2XX status codes?

I would think so; did you find anything in the spec saying something to 
the contrary?

> could they share a weak entity tag?

Entity tags are unique only per URI; so they could, but they don't have to.

> Q3, are there any circumstance where they could share a weak entity tag?

Why not, if they aren't served from the same URI?

> ps: is this the correct mailing list for questions such as this?

Sure!

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Nathan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:10:11 +0000

> I would think so; did you find anything in the spec saying something to

no hence why I was asking, because it appeared to conflict with the 3xx
range and conneg; indicating that I could essentially do conneg with a
200 OK + Content Location.

> Entity tags are unique only per URI; so they could, but they don't have to.

What about cache's giving back the wrong media-type, would a change in
media-type be a semantic change of such magnitude that a weak entity tag
couldn't be used (or would be misleading)?

> Why not, if they aren't served from the same URI?

as above :)

>> ps: is this the correct mailing list for questions such as this?

great! thanks for clarifying

> Best regards, Julian

Likewise, Nathan

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:16:47 +0100

> 200 OK + Content Location.

Of course, that's the standard use case.

> couldn't be used (or would be misleading)?

I'll let others disagree about that :-)

> ...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Yves Lafon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:47:06 -0400 (EDT)

> could they share a weak entity tag?

That looks like conneg to me... 302+CL seems weird in that case.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves