- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:14:00 -0500 (EST)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Should we keep this "multiple locations for one resource" paradigm?
>
> First of all, I do not agree with the "single new resource" interpretation.
> As Brian observed, that would be a conflict with RFC5023.
In that case, we need to amend the current text as I read it as implying
there is only one new resource.
Also:
<<<
A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating
the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just
created, see Section 6.1 of [Part4].
>>>
Should be:
<<<
If one single resource is created, a 201 response MAY contain...
>>>
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 15:14:06 UTC