W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:15:51 +1000
Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A7940879-67D2-41A3-BD42-DB2A7C8B6C76@mnot.net>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
So, to summarise, it seems like we have agreement here that removing   
"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."

It seems like there may be a bit of alignment needed, depending on how  
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/79> goes...



On 31/07/2008, at 11:36 PM, Brian Smith wrote:

> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 06:16:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT