- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:49:37 +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 18:41, 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