Subject: [httpwg/http-extensions] Values for available-value by reference? (#560)

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 15:20:31 +0000 (UTC)

For memento datetime negotiation using the `Accept-Datetime` header, as specified in [RFC7089](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7089), the list of values for `available-value` would typically be too large to convey by-value in the `Variants` header. That is because resource versions with many different datetimes can exist in both resource versioning systems and web archives. In order to convey all  datetime values that could be used for datetime negotiation, an approach to provide these values by-reference rather than by-value would be required. Currently, I assume that datetime negotiation is the only negotiation for which this problem exists but with explorations of other negotiation dimensions on the way (e.g. [fine grained content negotiation](https://ruben.verborgh.org/articles/fine-grained-content-negotiation/)) that may change.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/560