- From: Laurian Gridinoc <laurian@gridinoc.name>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:53:54 +0000
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Hello, Supposing that a 30x response is not explicitly disallowed to have a body… …what about a 30x (let's say 306) which means that the description is in the response body, while the Location points to a representation? It will keep old browsers happy via the redirect, while you get the description without any additional request. Cheers, Laurian Gridinoc PhD Student, Knowledge Media Institute On 5 Dec 2007, at 11:55, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > I proposed adding a 207 response code along these lines on another > list [1]: > > "To get something stronger than the negative conclusion which 303 > gives us, I think we should look seriously at asking for a new > response code in the new HTTP RFC: Either a 207, meaning explicitly > "The tag:representation returned herewith represents a description > of the resource identified by the requested URI (i.e. it is _not_ a > tag:representation of the resource itself)", or a 308, meaning > explicitly "No tag:representation of the resource identified by the > requested URI is available. The accompanying Location response > header gives a URI which identifies a description of that resource. > > "The 207 approach has the advantage that it does not require two > round-trips. The 308 approach has the advantage that it provides a > URI for the description. We _could_ mandate the provision of a > Content-Location response header when a 207 is given, but that is I > guess a bit weird. . ." > > ht > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2007Nov/0011.html
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 18:25:35 UTC