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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:02:35 +0200
Message-ID: <488F5B3B.20108@gmx.de>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Baker wrote:
> 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.

So, for instance for PUT, servers are expected to store it and return 
them in a subsequent GET?

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 18:03:18 GMT

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