- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:53:08 -0400
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 4/3/06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > How is it more constraining to allow responses other than 201? It's not more constraining along that axis, sure, and in fact I've always wondered why the requirement wasn't a SHOULD rather than a MUST... which I think would address your issue. > This > effectively forces the server to inform the client of the location of > *any* resource that happens to be created by a PUT, whether or not > that is useful or relevant information. > > At the end of the day, this isn't really a testable requirement, so > it's not a big deal; was just wondering what was in people's minds > when this was written. Can't help you there 8-) Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 02:53:14 UTC