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

Content-Location, was: PATCH draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:24:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4986BBEA.5080004@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I think my earlier comments still hold: 209 is not needed anywhere
> because that functionality is already covered by Content-Location.
> ....Roy
> ...

1) If we can simplfy the PATCH spec further, then yes, we should do that.

2) I was just looking at the description of Content-Location:

"The Content-Location entity-header field MAY be used to supply the 
resource location for the entity enclosed in the message when that 
entity is accessible from a location separate from the requested 
resource's URI..." -- 

 From that description, it's not entirely clear that it applies to this 
sue case, as the location returned in Content-Location would *not* be 
separate from the resource's URI. I guess we'll have to tune the 
language here somewhat.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 09:41:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:48 UTC