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 14:35:37 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640807291135p38ffc801ke593dbdc0421e270@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 Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> So, for instance for PUT, servers are expected to store it and return them
> in a subsequent GET?

That's up to the server.  From an HTTP POV, the meaning of both
request and response messages containing a Content-Location header
seems unambiguous.

FWIW though, after just re-reading the section, the definition does
seem to read like that of a response header, in particular the whole
"The Content-Location value is not a replacement for the original
requested URI" paragraph.  To clear that up, I propose changing that
to "In response messages, the Content-Location value is not [...]".
This is in addition to removing the aforementioned "PUT or POST"
sentence at the end.

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 18:36:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:46 UTC