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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:51:10 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640807291051k2a6bb250x10e270beb264661a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On 7/29/08, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Mark Baker wrote:
>
> > On 7/29/08, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > >  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."
> > >
> >
> > Eek, no, that seems to head in the opposite direction, as its meaning
> > is perfectly clear AFAICT.  I say we just remove the whole sentence.
> >
>
>  I see.
>
>  How about saying just:
>
>   "The meaning of the Content-Location header in requests is undefined."
>
>  Because otherwise we'll get people asking where it's defined :-)

8-)  But it's an entity header, so it means the same thing in requests
and responses.

Mark.
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 17:51:47 GMT

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