W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:56:29 +0100
Message-ID: <43654F9D.1030307@gmx.de>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> On 10/28/05 8:24 PM, "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>+1 for either Jim's suggested text or saying nothing,
>>and +1 that we then close this issue.
>>
>>Cheers, 
>>Geoff 
> 
> 
> So I am a client implementer, should I do anything with the Location header
> in a 207 or should I just always ignore it?

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.30>:

"The Location response-header field is used to redirect the recipient to 
a location other than the Request-URI for completion of the request or 
identification of a new resource."

The first part is for redirects (3xx), the second one for creation of 
resources (201). So right now HTTP doesn't seem to define anything for 
other response codes, so a recipient can ignore it. However, future 
revisions of RFC2616 (or other protocol extensions) may want to use it 
in more scenarios, so AFAIK we should *not* say anything more here.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2005 22:57:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT