W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:49:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA59721.9080404@gmx.de>
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 18:41, James Snell wrote:
> That would be necessary, yes. A Content-Location in a 202 Response
> would necessarily point to the expected final resource and would not
> be representative of the 202 responses own payload, which, by
> definition of the 202 code is supposed to describe the status of the
> request. A description of the relationship between the Location,
> Content-Location and Retry-After headers within a 202 response would
> also need to be added.
> ...

There you go. The fact that we need to introduce a new special-case 
without any backwards compat we need to consider makes me very unhappy.

I believe the right thing to do here is to write all of this down as a 
distinct draft, and leverage link relations to identify one of the two 
related resources (or even both).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 16:50:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:26 UTC