W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 1995

Re: a test result

From: Marc Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 13:08:23 -0700
Message-Id: <v02120d01ac4ec57315b3@[]>
To: dmk@allegra.att.com (Dave Kristol)
Cc: www-talk@www10.w3.org
At 12:46 PM 8/9/95, Dave Kristol wrote:
>  > It sounds like several of the respondants in this thread did not read the
>  > parent thread, in which it was explained that under the new HTTP/1.0 draft,
>  > a Location header should be sent with any 2xx response to identify "the URL
>  > needed to retrieve that same resource again..."  In other words, the new
>  > spec requires a 200 OK status to include a Location header.
>I quibble with your interpretation of the spec.  The actual words are
>        "For 2xx responses, the location should be the URL needed to
>        retrieve the same resource again..."
>Apparently the "should" is ambiguous.  You read it to mean that a
>server *must* send a Location header, and its value "should be the
>URL...".  I read it to mean that *if* the server sends Location, its
>value "should be the URL...".

Okay, that makes sense, but I agree with your suggestion that required v.
optional headers should be elaborated.

This quibble does not mean, however, that a script should be prevented from
sending location with a 2xx response.

Marc Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 1995 16:11:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:57 UTC