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 08:18:06 -0800
To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004801c86f25$2f460450$6501a8c0@T60>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:
> > 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.

If the intent is that the header is to be optional, or optional only for
specific methods and required for others, then that should stated
explicitly using RFC 2119 language. The current wording, "the newly
created resource can be referenced by the URI(s) returned in the entity
of the response, with the most specific URI for the resource given by a
Location header field," implies that the client can assume the Location
header is always there, which is why I interpret it as being required.

- Brian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 16:18:13 GMT

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