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

Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:34:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA5A19C.4060005@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:49 GMT