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

NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:17:52 +0200
Message-ID: <46AF60B0.7000104@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

the definition of Content-Location 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.14.p.7>) 
ends with:

"The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST requests is 
undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases."

This was added in RFC2616 (does not appear in RFC2068).

I have no problem allowing servers to ignore it. However:

1) It seems that the meaning of Content-Location is universal for 
messages that carry an entity; I'm not sure what's the point in claiming 
that meaning does not apply to PUT or POST.

2) Also: every time a limited set of methods is mentioned somewhere it 
feels like problematic spec writing. What makes PUT or POST so special 
in comparison to other methods? Maybe that they are the only methods in 
RFC2616 that carry request entity bodies? In which case the statement 
should be rephrased accordingly...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 16:18:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT