- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:40:02 +0100
- 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