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

Re: 209 No Content vs. application/empty

From: Andreas Sewe <sewe@rbg.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:07:50 +0200
Message-ID: <47012966.8050902@rbg.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

James M Snell wrote:
> Mark Nottingham has suggested that rather than inventing a new Accept
> header and 209 No Content response type, it might be better to create a
> new media type that indicates the absense of content and use Accept to
> indicate the preference.  For instance:
> In the request:
>   Accept: application/empty, application/atom+xml;q=0.5
> In the response:
>   HTTP 200 OK
>   Content-Type: application/empty
>   ...
> Seems to address the problem quite nicely.  I still think that there is
> benefit to the Prefer header but in this particular case, Marks
> suggestion seems to be a whole lot easier :-).

I like the idea in general but would prefer the media type to be called
"message/empty" instead. That "application/atom+xml" is of type
"application" doesn't mean that "*/empty" has be as well.

FWIW, there is already a media type called "message/partial";
"message/empty" thus fits into the "message" type quite nicely.


Andreas Sewe
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 17:08:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC