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

Re: Filling out 202 Accepted

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:47:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5787C7.8030308@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-08-26 10:03, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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.
> ...

Yes, if it makes sense and matches what people do :-)

I had a look at the first entry from Alexandre's list:


...and it does something interesting.

The initial 202 comes with a Location header field; the identified 
resource acts both as monitor and final result (202 -> you need to poll 
again, 200 -> here's your result).

I currently do not have time to check the other examples, but we really 
should before putting something into the spec...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 11:47:59 UTC

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