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: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:36:25 -0500
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <821663A96D9041ADBCF201F8FDC9518C@T60>


Julian Reschke wrote:
> Which means: it's ok to ignore Content-Location, if you "know" it.

I agree. Put another way, it is okay to remove or replace a Content-* header
but you cannot ignore ones you don't understand. 

Regards,
Brian

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 13:37:06 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Julian Reschke: "Re: Proposed patch for issue 71 (example for ETag matching)"
Previous message: Julian Reschke: "Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST"
In reply to: Julian Reschke: "Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST"
Next in thread: Henrik Nordstrom: "RE: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST"
Reply: Henrik Nordstrom: "RE: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:33 GMT