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

Re: Filling out 202 Accepted

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:03:02 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14EAC556-6605-4AED-B6ED-E4D2AA11DE6C@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 26/08/2011, at 5:48 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>>> ...so a "status monitor" resource would also be a candidate for the Location header field.
>> If it could be either, I think that would be bad for interop; you wouldn't be sure what following the location would result in.
> Right. I'm just not sure which of these makes more sense, so before picking one we probably should look at existing usage.

My thinking was that Location has a defined semantic in a 201, and arguably 202 should follow the same pattern.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 08:03:42 UTC

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