- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:07:12 +0100
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- CC: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Brian Smith wrote: > 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. In general, there's no point in sending a Location header for a 201 response to PUT. If the resource was not created at the Request-URI, the request shouldn't have succeeded in the first place. And, as far as I recall from debugging WebDAV traffic, many servers indeed do not include the header. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 15:07:35 UTC