- From: J Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:07:57 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Apologies, slight correction, 404 doesn't specifically imply anything, however I think the point that 410 is useful to indicate a resource previously existed: "The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address." - 10.4.5 in RFC 2616 ( http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html ) "The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known." - 104.11 in RFC 2616 ( http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html ) So, it's not explicitly stated that a resource MUST have previously existed for a 410 status to be returned, but I think reasonably implied. On 25/08/2011 13:56, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >On 2011-08-25 14:54, J Ross Nicoll wrote: >> 404 implies that the address was never valid, whereas 410 indicates that >> it was previously valid, but is no longer. This is useful, for example, >>to >> make it clear that the address was not mis-entered, but that it's >> deliberately been removed. > > >Can you back those claims with citations from the spec? > >Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:08:27 UTC