W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Section 9.4 POST

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 22:34:15 PDT
To: jg@w3.org
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96May31.223426pdt.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/679
Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com> says:
> Section 9.6 says:
>If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response SHOULD
>be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the status of the
>request and refers to the new resource.
>Should it says that it SHOULD also return a Content-Location: when a
>resource has been created? Or at least refer to the Content-Location
>section to indicate the possible desirability of same?

What interoperable operations would be enabled by such a
recommendation?  My belief is that we need very good reason to
specifying new behavior that was not in 1.0 or previous versions of
1.1, and that if we've not recommended a Content-Location in the past,
we shouldn't recommend one now without some compelling reason.

We've had compelling reasons to fix caching, add host headers, and
finally enable at least some kind of reliable content-negotiation, but
neither range-PUT nor content-location-on-POST fall into this

Received on Friday, 31 May 1996 22:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC