- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:34:20 +0200
- To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On 2011-10-24 19:24, James Snell wrote: > Ordinarily I would agree but, in this case, I'm not convinced that the > backwards compatibility problem is a significant issue. Specifically, > I have not seen (and did not see anything in the examples linked to > within the other thread) any existing cases of 202 that would conflict > with this approach. Should the Content-Location header be excluded > from the 202 response, it would simply be handled as it is today. > Currently, the use of Content-Location in a 202 is rather undefined > and left wide open to interpretation so there's really no solid > precedent to fall back on or conflict with, it would seem. > ... My concern is not backwards compat, but adding special cases without a very good reason for them. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 17:35:01 UTC