- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:27:13 +0100
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07.01.2011 10:59, Nathan wrote: > Hi, > > Just looking for a quick clarification on valid usage of > Content-Location w/ 200 OK in response to a GET, is the following valid > usage? > > given: > > current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, multiple representations > /spec/2011-01-04 > > current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, html representation > /spec/2011-01-04.html > > current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, txt representation > /spec/2011-01-04.txt > > latest working draft of the spec > /spec/latest > > > If a client makes a GET request on /spec/latest with an Accept header > indicating they want a text/html variant, then can the server respond > with 200 OK and a Content-Location of /spec/2011-01-04.html? Yes. Is there something in the spec that suggests otherwise? > Or must it 302/307 to /spec/2011-01-04 first? > > And as an addition question, if this is fine (200 OK w/ Content > Location), which is the preferred approach / best for the network? If you redirect you say "the resource is somewhere else". If you send 200 with C-L you say "here's a representation, and a more specific URI is....". The latter saves a roundtrip. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 10:28:19 UTC