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

Re: a test result

From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 17:06:02 -0400
Message-Id: <199508092106.RAA04851@beach.w3.org>
To: hedlund@best.com (Marc Hedlund)
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
>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.  If the server
>unilaterally changes the status line to 302 whenever a location header
>appears, then it is not conforming to the spec -- for which it should be
>forgiven since the spec has changed.  However, servers should never ignore
>directives, and that hasn't changed.

WHOA!!! Hold on there.  It doesn't say that.  It says:

   If the entity corresponds to a resource, the response may include a 
   Location header field giving the actual location of that specific 
   resource for later reference.

*may* is the operative word here!

Your CGI discussion is correct, but Location is optional.


 ....Roy T. Fielding  Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
                      Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
                      (fielding@w3.org)                (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 1995 17:06:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:18 GMT