W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: ISSUE CONTENT-LOCATION: Proposed wording

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 21:09:17 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199707081909.VAA26493@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen:
>
>
>Description of problem:
>
>	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/#CONTENT-LOCATION
>
>Some comments
[....]

>- What does Content-Location mean in a PUT or a POST request?

Its presence in the request message should not do anything special
with respect to caching as far as I am concerned.  Doing something
special would make possible some new denial-of-caching-service attacks.

> Section 13.10
> mentions Content-Location as a response header and not an entity header
>which is in conflict with section 7.1,
[...]
>Section 13.10
>
><<<<<
>Some HTTP methods may invalidate an entity. This is either the entity
>referred to by the Request-URI, or by the Location or Content-Location
>response-headers (if present). These methods are:
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
            I think that 13.10 means `the Content-Location headers in
the response' here, rather than `any content location headers in the
request or the response'.

>=====
>Some HTTP methods may invalidate an entity. This is either the entity
>referred to by the Request-URI, or by the Location or Content-Location
>headers (if present). These methods are:
        ^^
         add `in the response' here.


The other proposed edits look fine to me.

Koen.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 1997 12:12:35 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:46 EDT