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: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:40:02 +0100
Message-ID: <47B46EE2.6000200@gmx.de>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

Brian Smith wrote:
> 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.
> ...

Good point.

In reality, many servers do not return it for PUT (as it would be 
redundant), so I think the spec needs to allow that.

(Mark, new issue?)

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 16:40:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC