- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:51:00 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1 I think this is editorial; we've already made the decisions behind it. Regards, On 18/05/2011, at 5:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi there, > > P2 currently says (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14.html#rfc.section.9.4.p.7>): > > "There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URI would not be appropriate: > > - With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location header field specifies the URI for the entire created resource. > - With 305 Use Proxy." > > This is not very helpful. as we have deprecated 305 (and advice-only anyway). > > I'd like to reduce this to: > > "There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URI would not be appropriate. For instance, when it appears in a 201 Created response, where the Location header field specifies the URI for the entire created resource." > > Feedback appreciated, > > Julian > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 00:51:28 UTC