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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:38:40 +1000
Message-Id: <BDD4E8E7-7261-4C4B-94E9-6110C0DDB0E3@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i80


On 01/08/2007, at 2:17 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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...


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 03:39:10 GMT

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