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

RE: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code?

From: Mike Dierken <dierken@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:31:19 -0700
To: "'Yaron Goland'" <yarong@microsoft.com>, "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005501c7e607$9e82a4b0$0201a8c0@mercury>

Hmm, I've always preferred a 200 Success, on the basis that the state of
'being gone' is now successfully transferred. I've also thought it was good
to have multiple DELETE requests respond with the same status code. For
example, if the first DELETE failed to respond (but work was actually
performed), the second request (which could have been auto-retried by a
client library or intermediary) would return a 4xx code, even though the
resource existed at the time of the first request.

But there is a definite lack of clarity on the 'right' answer.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Goland
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:40 AM
> To: Henrik Nordstrom
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource 
> return a 2xx code?
> 
> Yeah it seems pretty clear now that 404 is the right answer. 
> I think my internal spec lawyer just went looney.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henrik Nordstrom [mailto:henrik@henriknordstrom.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:12 PM
> > To: Yaron Goland
> > Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Should a DELETE against a non-existent 
> resource return a 
> > 2xx code?
> >
> > On mån, 2007-08-20 at 10:05 -0700, Yaron Goland wrote:
> >
> > > What’s the opinion of the working group?
> >
> > I would prefer 404. It's quite likely useful to the client to know 
> > that the object wasn't found by the server.
> >
> > 404 is also in line with how servers respond to other requests for 
> > non-existing resources.
> >
> > Regards
> > Henrik
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 04:31:21 GMT

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