- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:24:01 +0200
- To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On 2011-10-24 18:13, James Snell wrote: > Julian, thank you for the pointer, I had missed that thread entirely. > The distinction between the final response and the status monitor > concern could be addressed through the additional application of the > Content-Location header. Within a 202 Response, the Location URI would > be assumed to point essentially to a status monitor, while the > Content-Location would point to the URI of the final response. If they > ... In which case we'd need to special-case status code 202 within <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest.html#identifying.response.associated.with.representation>, right? > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 16:24:33 UTC