Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After

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