- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 21:14:16 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-09-28 21:01, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On 09/28/2014 03:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2014-09-28 01:57, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> ... >>>> Why don't you just make it: >>>> >>>> Prefer: retrieve-contents-of-303-target >>>> >>>> (with a more suitable name...) >>> >>> Hmmm. What do you think about the rest of the proposal? Do you >>> prefer this header-based design over the response-code based one? Are >>> you okay with both or neither or just this one? >> >> My point being is that you don't need a new header field, just the >> prefer parameter. >> > > Okay.... So the presence of "Preference-Applied: > retrieve-content-of-303-target" (or whatever it ends up called, maybe > just "follow-303") in the response headers would have the same semantics > as the 2NN Contents Of Related response code would have! (And a Location > header would be added saying where we ended up.) Yes, as far as I can > see that would work technically. Nice and simple. I like it. It would be "retrieve", not "follow". So you'd still get a 303, but the response body would be for the resource Location points to. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 28 September 2014 19:14:47 UTC