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

Re: Content-Location on 200 responses

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:10:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4CD6CF58.7080704@gmx.de>
To: Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 05.11.2010 21:08, Mike Kelly wrote:
> I may be missing something very simple, but reading through
> "Semantics, 6.1 : Identifying the Resource Associated with a
> Representation"
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#page-14)
> it seems like rule 4 cannot apply to 200 responses, as rule 1 should
> be selected in preference.
> Is that deliberate?

I believe so. Note that rule 1 is specific to GET, and rule 2 is 
specific to HEAD and GET.

So rule 4 could apply to a 200 response to PUT, for instance.

What's the issue here? A 200 response to a GET carrying a Content-Location?

Just because the C-L is present doesn't mean that the response isn't a 
representation of the resource at the effective request URI. If it 
wasn't, then 200 would be the wrong status code in the first place.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:10:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC