Map get resource by profile preferencing from abstract to HTTP & QSA

[nicholascar]

Ensure that the mechanisms described for get resource by profile that allow for profile preferencing are equivalent. Is an ordered list (the QSA approach) as rich as the HTTP method that uses both a list an quality ('q') values? Does the Abstract Model function capture all the possibilities of the HTTP realization?

[aisaac]

Note from my comments at #575 : There's an issue with Abstract Model for preferences (6.2 and 7.1). 6.2.2 mentions that preferences are expressed in 'some form of list ordering'. This is a bit different from the quality indicators from 7.1.2. And (a question real question at the same time as a possible example of issue:) can q values have ties?

[larsgsvensson]

@aisaac scripsit:

can q values have ties?

Yes, I think they can. The client is free to submit the same q-values for several formats/profiles/languages and the server can have q-values for formats/profiles/languages, too. Since the server multiplies the clients and the servers q-value for each dimension, it can fairly easily come to ties. At the end of the day, the server returns what it considers the best representation.

[ghost]

Addressed by addressing #575