- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:11:41 -0700
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 6, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > Regarding the new proposed "209 Content Returned" status code. > > I think recent discussions show that there is actually a need for two > new status codes. > > 209 Content Retuned okay, but only if it is forbidden as a response to GET. There is no need to make any special reference to Vary or Cache-control -- just define all fields to be interpreted as if the request method had been GET. > 210 Information returned No way. That is what Content-Location provides. We don't need a Content-Etag header field -- the Etag response header field would always have the same value. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 20:11:54 UTC