- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:00:12 -0700
- To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Oct 24, 2011, at 9:13 AM, 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. No, that is reversed -- the 202 response might be considered a status monitor's representation and thus point to itself using Content-Location. No change to the spec is required for that interpretation. I don't see any need to use Location here, since 303 can be used to point to the final response as a placeholder. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 20:07:50 UTC