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

Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:00:12 -0700
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-Id: <AC3D23CE-2512-44DC-B2F6-1B03784946CA@gbiv.com>
To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
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

I don't see any need to use Location here, since 303 can be used
to point to the final response as a placeholder.

Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 20:07:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:54 UTC