- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:28:28 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordström wrote: > tis 2008-02-05 klockan 13:52 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: > >> Again? Why would you want to return a Location header in PUT->201? I >> don't think servers do return it today. > > Can think of a number of reasons. Location in 201 is pretty much the > same as Content-Location in 200. In simple cases it's identical to the > Request-URI but there is a number of cases where they may differ. > > A example for PUT would be a server implementing "nameless PUT" to a > directory automatically assigning a name to the created resource. That would be contrary to how PUT is defined (I agree it would be useful - [1], but you can't do that with PUT). > ... BR, Julian [1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-addmember-00.html>
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 14:35:27 UTC