- From: Alexandre Morgaut <Alexandre.Morgaut@4d.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:10:15 +0200
- To: J Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25 août 2011, at 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. This difference is an interesting piece of information to give to the user but for some privacy policy it might also be a lack of security. I have myself already used the 410 status code in this case but I wouldn't do it every-time for any kind of resource. I think it is interesting to promote this status code after a DELETE, but not with a SHOULD. Even more, I would explain the impact of such a use. > > On 25/08/2011 13:48, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >> On 2011-08-25 14:25, Karl Dubost wrote: >>> in DELETE section [1], it might be worth to add a paragraph. >>> >>> Once the server has successfully completed >>> the DELETE, a server response on any >>> subsequent requests on the same URI SHOULD be >>> 410 (Gone) (See section 8.4.11 of [Part2]). >> >> Why? >> >> Why not 404? >> >> And 200 is possible once the URI gets mapped again... >> > > > Alexandre Morgaut Product Manager 4D SAS 60, rue d'Alsace 92110 Clichy France Standard : +33 1 40 87 92 00 Email : Alexandre.Morgaut@4d.com Web : www.4D.com
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:10:46 UTC