- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:43:42 -0800
- To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke > Brian Smith wrote: > >Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> PROPOSAL: > >> A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field > >> indicating the current value of the newly created > >> resource's selected representation ETag (i.e., the ETag > >> that would be returned if the same selecting headers had > >> been sent in a GET request to it). > > > > The above implies that only one resource was created. "the > > newly created resource" should become a reference to the > > resource pointed to by the Location header. > > Yes (with the special case for PUT). What do you mean? A PUT can result in multiple resources being created, and a 201 response for a PUT should have a Location header. Actually, section 10.2.2 of RFC 2616 doesn't say "should" but I think that is the intent. - Brian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 14:43:56 UTC