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: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:28:28 +0100
Message-ID: <47A8728C.7030909@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
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>

Henrik Nordström wrote:
> 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.

That would be contrary to how PUT is defined (I agree it would be useful 
- [1], but you can't do that with PUT).

> ...

BR, Julian

[1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-addmember-00.html>
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 14:35:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:36 GMT