- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:20:32 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-26 01:34, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 26/01/2012, at 6:30 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2012-01-25 01:07, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> ... >>> The question remains whether we should relax more of the SHOULD-level >>> requirements on response payloads. At least some of them seem fishy (not >>> necessarily the 3xx ones). Will send separate mail later this week. >>> ... >> >> Here we go; excerpts from P2 Section 7: >> >> 7.2.2. 201 Created >> >> The request has been fulfilled and has resulted in a new resource >> being created. The newly created resource can be referenced by the >> URI(s) returned in the payload of the response, with the most >> specific URI for the resource given by a Location header field. The >> response SHOULD include a payload containing a list of resource >> characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can >> choose the one most appropriate. ... >> >> This seems fishy. In particular it makes little sense for PUT->2 > > +1. Downgrade to prose? > ... -> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1516> (s/SHOULD/can/) Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 17:21:20 UTC