One additional point I thought of just as this was being sent... even with the new status code, we will likely still need to say something about 2xx responses that contain Content-Location - James James M Snell wrote: > Just so I'm clear on this: the new response code would be used to > indicate that the response entity is equivalent to what would be > returned on a subsequent GET. If so, I'm perfectly fine with that and > have no problem adding it to the spec. > > - James > > Mark Baker wrote: >> On 8/1/07, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: >>>> So to be clear, are you now suggesting that a 200 PATCH response would >>>> *not* have this specific meaning, and that only this new response code >>>> would indicate that it did have it? If so, great, we're in sync. >>> Yes. >> Great. >> >> So I'm going to propose that we add this response code to the PATCH >> draft. What does everyone think? >> >> Mark. >Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 02:35:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:03:18 UTC