- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:03:02 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26/08/2011, at 5:48 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> ...so a "status monitor" resource would also be a candidate for the Location header field. >> >> If it could be either, I think that would be bad for interop; you wouldn't be sure what following the location would result in. > > Right. I'm just not sure which of these makes more sense, so before picking one we probably should look at existing usage. My thinking was that Location has a defined semantic in a 201, and arguably 202 should follow the same pattern. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 08:03:42 UTC