Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Possible%20need%20for%20new%203xx%20status%20code%20Temporarily%20See%20Other&In-Reply-To=%3C702BE6B4-8EE9-4239-8A0F-85331FD99078%40gbiv.com%3E&References=%3C702BE6B4-8EE9-4239-8A0F-85331FD99078%40gbiv.com%3E>> wrote:
> Why don't you simply respond with 200 and a cached representation?
> Telling the client to make another request for a different resource which is
> somehow less than this one is just going to make the overload worse
> while not satisfying the original request. A cached (or even canned) response
> will satisfy the request as if it were made at some point in the past, and will
> be recognized as such by the client because it is marked with age, cache-control, etc.
> As a practical matter, that is how all large CDN-based websites work. It only looks
> like the message is the most current representation of the resource because that's
> what the origin wants the client to believe.
Thank you. I believe that's what we ultimately decided to do, as well as proactively prevent the situation that required this need in the first place.
This places my original suggestion in the theoretical realm for situations where serving an old version of content might not be desirable for some reason, for example, legal reasons. However, it is no longer an issue, or at least is about to be, for the site I am associated with.
Hope this helps,
Charles Belov
he/him
Digital Accessibility & Inclusion Coordinator
Founding Web Lead
Communications & Marketing
[SFMTA logo]
Office 415.646.2061
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
1 South Van Ness Avenue, 3rd floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
[SFMTA Instagram page]<https://www.instagram.com/sfmtaphoto/>[SFMTA Facebook page]<https://www.facebook.com/SFMTA.Muni/>[SFMTA Twitter page]<https://twitter.com/sfmta_muni>[SFMTA public website]<https://www.sfmta.com/>
