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

Re: Content-Location on 200 responses

From: Mike Kelly <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:43:49 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimjRbretL7dGsBFvzoYgk+U4_tP1FrfciQL2E4W@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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?

Yes. This came up on public-lod because I suggested it might be a way
around the range-14 shenanigans.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Nov/0188.html

>
> 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.
>

Agreed. Is it possible for both rules to apply?

The reason I ask is clarification on the following (taken from
discussion linked above):

"If a client wants to make a statement  about the specific document
[URI] then a response that includes a content-location is giving you
the information necessary to do that correctly."

Is that statement wrong?

Cheers,
Mike
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 16:44:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:32 GMT