- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:48:40 +1100
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, Dan Anderson <dan-anderson@cox.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20/10/2011, at 9:35 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> I wonder if a 3xx response was considered. Since the typical scenario involves redirection, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine 3xx. > > I am not sure if we considered it or not -- it would be nice to make use > of the Location header field. Mark? I think it was discussed a long time ago, in the previous draft. We can't assume that existing clients will treat a 3xx with a Location as a redirect, so it's of limited value (now) to use 3xx. Also, redirection status codes currently all have a semantic of "the thing you're looking for is over there." In this case, that wouldn't be true. I know that's not a codified semantic of 3xx, but it does lead to a one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other situation. And, of course, we can always specify the use of Location on 511 (for what good it will do). I'm not against 3xx, BTW -- just trying to reconstruct how we got here. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 02:49:08 UTC