Re: Is it correct to respond with partial representation for low capabilities media-types?

Hi Will,

thanks for your time.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Will Hartung <[email protected]> wrote:
> Consider, say, BMP vs PNG, where BMP is basically a raw pixmap and PNG is
> compressed. Here, since PNG is lossless, so there's not much of a compromise
> in place unless the client simply can't decode PNG (always possible).
>
> But then consider BMP vs JPEG. JPEG is lossy, but the results are certainly
> adequate for a lot of use cases.
>
> Consider a low fidelity "mobile" representation. That seems completely
> appropriate, don't you think?

Yes that is a good example.

> And, of course, this is only for GETing representations -- this has nothing
> to do with PUT or POSTing representations. That's a completely different
> animal.

If for example PUT would need to be made on such resource, then I
guess the client would need to GET the lossless representation first
on his mobile device before manipulating it with the user agent and
sending the modified version to the server. In your case the use for
the lossy representation may be a preference. But there are case when
user agent limitation could not get around this. So it would have to
PUT the lossy representation on the server.

--Philippe