- From: Andreas Sewe <sewe@rbg.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:07:50 +0200
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
James M Snell wrote: > Mark Nottingham has suggested that rather than inventing a new Accept > header and 209 No Content response type, it might be better to create a > new media type that indicates the absense of content and use Accept to > indicate the preference. For instance: > > In the request: > > Accept: application/empty, application/atom+xml;q=0.5 > > In the response: > > HTTP 200 OK > Content-Type: application/empty > ... > > Seems to address the problem quite nicely. I still think that there is > benefit to the Prefer header but in this particular case, Marks > suggestion seems to be a whole lot easier :-). I like the idea in general but would prefer the media type to be called "message/empty" instead. That "application/atom+xml" is of type "application" doesn't mean that "*/empty" has be as well. FWIW, there is already a media type called "message/partial"; "message/empty" thus fits into the "message" type quite nicely. Regards, Andreas Sewe
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 17:08:19 UTC