W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

RE: NEW ISSUE: redirection vs location

From: Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:39:19 -0700
To: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8301DE7F96C0074C8DA98484623D7E511569327CF7@DF-MASTIFF-MSG.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>

The proposed change nicely corrects the order of the sentence to match the elaborations provided in the following two lines.

 The Location response-header field is used for the identification of a
 new resource or to redirect the recipient to a location other than the
 Request-URI for completion of the request.

 For 201 (Created) responses, the Location is that of the new
 resource which was created by the request. For 3xx responses,
 the location SHOULD indicate the server's preferred URI for
 automatic redirection to the resource. The field value consists
 of a single absolute URI.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asbjørn Ulsberg
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Julian Reschke; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: redirection vs location


On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:17:06 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> "The Location response-header field is used for the identification of a
> new resource or to redirect the recipient to a location other than the
> Request-URI for completion of the request. (...)"

I agree that switching the two sentences makes it clearer. +1.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:41:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:09 GMT