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

Re: DELETE and 410 Gone

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>
Message-ID: <CA7C06B3.EF1A%jrn@jrn.me.uk>
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,
>> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:58 UTC