W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: 204 No Content for a resource which is known but has no representation yet?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:49:21 +0000
Message-ID: <4B9DF491.3060106@webr3.org>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Hi Martin,

I'm actually having a full back track on my thought..

If a resource is anything that can be named, then I have it's name / can
describe what it is, so I should stop being lazy and at least give what
tiny bit of information I know (even if just the name).

The above may have been the solution I needed all along (gulp)



Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> You say that there will be something there in about a week. What about
> just waiting a week? Then your problem will go away :-). Another
> alternative might be to put something very simple there now (e.g. an
> empty document) and update that later. The empty document (or a 303 to
> an empty document) seems to express quite well what the system currently
> can say about this URI.
> Regards,    Martin.
> On 2010/03/14 9:38, Nathan wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Can I use a 204 No Content to indicate that a resource is known but
>> currently does not have a representation (or another resource which
>> describes it)?
>> example:
>> I have a resource which is a conceptual map to "me"; I have assigned a
>> URI to that resource, am in the process of creating a document which
>> describes me, and when I am done I will 303 See Other to the document
>> from the resource which is a conceptual map to "me".
>> In the interim what status code can I use to say that the resource is
>> known, does not have a representation of its own that can be transferred
>> by the server over HTTP, another resource is not know that is
>> descriptive of said resource&  the resource identifier is not to be used
>> for anything else.
>> I've fully checked through all status codes, including the 4xx's but
>> can't find any to use, and 204 No Content seems to fit the best as far
>> as I can tell.
>> Many Thanks,
>> Nathan
Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 08:50:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC