- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:38:40 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i80 On 01/08/2007, at 2:17 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > the definition of Content-Location (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/ > webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.14.p.7>) ends with: > > "The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST requests > is undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases." > > This was added in RFC2616 (does not appear in RFC2068). > > I have no problem allowing servers to ignore it. However: > > 1) It seems that the meaning of Content-Location is universal for > messages that carry an entity; I'm not sure what's the point in > claiming that meaning does not apply to PUT or POST. > > 2) Also: every time a limited set of methods is mentioned somewhere > it feels like problematic spec writing. What makes PUT or POST so > special in comparison to other methods? Maybe that they are the > only methods in RFC2616 that carry request entity bodies? In which > case the statement should be rephrased accordingly... -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 03:39:10 UTC