- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:34:45 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> But the more I think about this the less convinced I get that a new "200 >> OK here is your content" status code is needed. Simply providing a >> Content-Location or expiry information in the 200 OK should be >> sufficient. I.e. a generalisation of the POST rules, adding >> Content-Location as an alternative criteria an applying it to any method >> unless the method definition says otherwise. > > Yes, it should be sufficient, which is what Mark was saying > in the first place. But it was (intentionally) defined that way > over 10 years ago and nobody uses it, even though there are plenty > of use cases for which it applies. Maybe just adding a lot more > text to how Content-Location should be interpreted for all methods, > and how Cache-control/Expires/ETag apply along with it, will be > enough to make people use it as specified. *shrug* > Or it won't be enough and people still won't use it as specified. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but a new status code is likely the more reliable of the two options. - James
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 00:34:51 UTC