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

Re: Clarification on use of Content-Location requested

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:27:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4D26EA81.2030603@gmx.de>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07.01.2011 10:59, Nathan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just looking for a quick clarification on valid usage of
> Content-Location w/ 200 OK in response to a GET, is the following valid
> usage?
>
> given:
>
> current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, multiple representations
> /spec/2011-01-04
>
> current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, html representation
> /spec/2011-01-04.html
>
> current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, txt representation
> /spec/2011-01-04.txt
>
> latest working draft of the spec
> /spec/latest
>
>
> If a client makes a GET request on /spec/latest with an Accept header
> indicating they want a text/html variant, then can the server respond
> with 200 OK and a Content-Location of /spec/2011-01-04.html?

Yes. Is there something in the spec that suggests otherwise?

> Or must it 302/307 to /spec/2011-01-04 first?
>
> And as an addition question, if this is fine (200 OK w/ Content
> Location), which is the preferred approach / best for the network?

If you redirect you say "the resource is somewhere else". If you send 
200 with C-L you say "here's a representation, and a more specific URI 
is....". The latter saves a roundtrip.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 10:28:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:36 GMT