W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: ISSUE: Returning metainformation on a 201 (Created) response

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:57:33 -0700
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9807291957.aa04188@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/286
>a) I'm nervous about adding anything like this at this date.  I'd be happier
>with a separate RFC describing what should happen...  This should have
>been dealt with months ago.

Yes.  Actually, I think we had the same discussion about a year ago,
resulting in a substantial change to the definition of the Etag field
from what it meant for RFC 2068.  I am still queesy about that change,
but it does support the usage in 201 that Henrik suggests.

The contrarian in me finds it necessary to point out that this is
just one of many protocol changes that require a version number bump
to HTTP/1.2.  It is no longer the same protocol, and this is precisely
why we have that second number.

>b) 4) seems a gross hack to me, adding another HEAD class special case
>to the protocol.

Yep.  A more appropriate definition is to include the new properties
of the resource in the body of the response, either as a multipart or
in XML.  But that would require a lot more definition of the response
format, which is something only WebDAV has done so far.

Received on Friday, 31 July 1998 13:25:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC