W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:16:12 +0100
Message-ID: <4F59CA5C.90503@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-03-08 01:41, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I'd like to see it be more general; i.e., other methods could, in theory, be defined to use 201 without a location (although I'd grant this is unlikely).
>
> It's also a bit wordy, currently.
>
> Suggest:
>
> """
> The request has been fulfilled and has resulted in one or more new resources being created.
>
> Newly created resources are typically linked to from the response payload, with the most relevant URI also being carried in the Location header field. If the newly created resource's URI is the same as the Effective Request URI, this information can be omitted (e.g., in the case of a response to a PUT request).
> """
> ...

I like this better, but it makes another change (talking about multiple 
resources being created) that we haven't discussed before; I believe 
this should go into a separate issue...

Rephrased proposal:

7.2.2.  201 Created

    The request has been fulfilled and has resulted in a new resource
    being created.

    The newly created resource is typically linked to from the response
    payload, with the most relevant URI also being carried in the
    Location header field.  If the newly created resource's URI is the
    same as the Effective Request URI, this information can be omitted
    (e.g., in the case of a response to a PUT request).

(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/331/331.2.diff>)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 09:16:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT