Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related

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