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: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:43:42 -0800
To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003e01c86f17$ff03cff0$6501a8c0@T60>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT