> Supporting GET is a good idea. It makes the simple case simpler.
Very simple :)
> One minor comment: Given that one reason for supporting GET is
> generic, non-HELD/PIDF-aware clients, doesn't it seem a little odd
> that the GET example includes:
> Accept: application/pidf+xml,application/held+xml;q=0.5
>
> It might be a little more realistic to use something like a typical
> XHR Accept line:
> Accept: application/xml,text/xml;q=0.5,*;q=0.1
>
I do take the comment for the first example GET request - that's definitely worth updating to include a typical Accept header.
But not the second one. If you want this sort of behaviour, you have to know what you are getting. That means that this isn't a HELD- and PIDF-aware client.
The typical Accept here isn't much use in selecting one document type over another. Both fall types under '*;q=0.1'. The typical request doesn't express a useful preference.
The other thing to consider here is how this unaware client might become aware. They do this by triggering a useful default response. If that isn't a location response, they never get the opportunity to learn that HELD works here.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
