W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:04:19 +0100
Message-ID: <47A1D563.6060103@gmx.de>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Yves Lafon wrote:
> The definition of 201 assumes that only one resource is created, so if a 
> POST creates multiple new resources, 200 should be returned instead of 
> 201. However, in the text:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01#section-9.2.2
> <<<
> The response SHOULD include an entity containing a list of resource 
> characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can 
> choose the one most appropriate.
> Should we keep this "multiple locations for one resource" paradigm?

First of all, I do not agree with the "single new resource" 
interpretation. As Brian observed, that would be a conflict with RFC5023.

> ...

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 14:11:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC