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

Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:34:45 -0700
Message-ID: <46B7BE25.1030507@gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>



Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> But the more I think about this the less convinced I get that a new "200
>> OK here is your content" status code is needed. Simply providing a
>> Content-Location or expiry information in the 200 OK should be
>> sufficient. I.e. a generalisation of the POST rules, adding
>> Content-Location as an alternative criteria an applying it to any method
>> unless the method definition says otherwise.
> 
> Yes, it should be sufficient, which is what Mark was saying
> in the first place.  But it was (intentionally) defined that way
> over 10 years ago and nobody uses it, even though there are plenty
> of use cases for which it applies. Maybe just adding a lot more
> text to how Content-Location should be interpreted for all methods,
> and how Cache-control/Expires/ETag apply along with it, will be
> enough to make people use it as specified.  *shrug*
> 

Or it won't be enough and people still won't use it as specified.  I'm
not saying it's a good thing, but a new status code is likely the more
reliable of the two options.

- James
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 00:34:51 GMT

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