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: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:20:09 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1202221209.17924.78.camel@hlaptop>
tis 2008-02-05 klockan 13:52 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:

> Again? Why would you want to return a Location header in PUT->201? I 
> don't think servers do return it today.

Can think of a number of reasons. Location in 201 is pretty much the
same as Content-Location in 200. In simple cases it's identical to the
Request-URI but there is a number of cases where they may differ.

A example for PUT would be a server implementing "nameless PUT" to a
directory automatically assigning a name to the created resource.
Another would be when the PUT request was carried out on a valid URI for
the resource but it's not the preffered URI for fetching the created
resource, or yet another would be a versioned resource where each PUT
creates a new resource each at unique locations.

But this use of Location in 201 is a lot more apparent when looking at
the use of POST for creating resources. But PUT isn't really that


Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 14:22:21 UTC

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