W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:02:37 +0200
Message-ID: <488F4D2D.9050506@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i80
> 
> 
> On 01/08/2007, at 2:17 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> the definition of Content-Location 
>> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.14.p.7>) 
>> ends with:
>>
>> "The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST requests is 
>> undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases."
>>
>> This was added in RFC2616 (does not appear in RFC2068).
>>
>> I have no problem allowing servers to ignore it. However:
>>
>> 1) It seems that the meaning of Content-Location is universal for 
>> messages that carry an entity; I'm not sure what's the point in 
>> claiming that meaning does not apply to PUT or POST.
>>
>> 2) Also: every time a limited set of methods is mentioned somewhere it 
>> feels like problematic spec writing. What makes PUT or POST so special 
>> in comparison to other methods? Maybe that they are the only methods 
>> in RFC2616 that carry request entity bodies? In which case the 
>> statement should be rephrased accordingly...
>  ...

Proposal: just drop "PUT and POST" from the sentence, making it:

"The meaning of the Content-Location header in requests is
undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases."

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 17:03:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:53 GMT