Re: Preference-Applied Response Header
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 07 March 2013 15:48 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C323221F8DC0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:48:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9CKUqH4jt33S for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E3F21F8DBB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UDd2L-00019M-8A for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:47:17 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:47:17 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UDd2L-00019M-8A@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UDd2A-00018d-40 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:47:06 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UDd25-0003LE-CE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:47:06 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.28]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LuZpe-1UvWTy2XYm-00zqIG for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:46:34 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Mar 2013 15:46:34 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 07 Mar 2013 16:46:34 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/5FxsFgS35w4odN+Wj/8lfmVcgNNQUJyYmE/xNAO ocAJo7wDAMRqgE
Message-ID: <5138B658.6050606@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:46:32 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <5138A514.3090803@andrew.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5138A514.3090803@andrew.cmu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.100, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UDd25-0003LE-CE 11f833b3056e37c3f2a84de3987ccc7c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Preference-Applied Response Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5138B658.6050606@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16985
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
On 2013-03-07 15:32, Ken Murchison wrote: > All, > > Its not overly important, but as I was coding this up, I started > wondering how to categorize this response header in httpbis-22 terms. > Would this header be considered part of Control Data, Response Context, > Representation Metadata, or something else? Right now, I'm leaning > towards Control Data since Prefer is similar to Expect which is > categorized as a Control. > > And while we're at it, what about these WebDAV response headers: > > DAV: similar to Allow => Response Context? Si. > Lock-Token: used in conditional requests => Validator? Nope, lock tokens (for the purpose of validation) are passed using "If"...
- Preference-Applied Response Header Ken Murchison
- Re: Preference-Applied Response Header Julian Reschke
- Re: Preference-Applied Response Header Ken Murchison
- Re: Preference-Applied Response Header Julian Reschke