- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:24:58 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > I think my earlier comments still hold: 209 is not needed anywhere > because that functionality is already covered by Content-Location. > > ....Roy > ... 1) If we can simplfy the PATCH spec further, then yes, we should do that. 2) I was just looking at the description of Content-Location: "The Content-Location entity-header field MAY be used to supply the resource location for the entity enclosed in the message when that entity is accessible from a location separate from the requested resource's URI..." -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.14>) From that description, it's not entirely clear that it applies to this sue case, as the location returned in Content-Location would *not* be separate from the resource's URI. I guess we'll have to tune the language here somewhat. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 09:41:59 UTC