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

Re: DELETE and 410 Gone

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>
Message-ID: <44139535-C9F6-47C7-BA4A-B2A9DA23E0EC@4d.com>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:47 GMT