W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Location, fragments, and when not to use them

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:51:00 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A1B22EEF-C8C2-4358-9881-A061C8D3F62E@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
+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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:40 GMT