W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: What is the document base URI of a POSTed document?

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:05:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfFHiAiKZLQ8iTepJZSLjEvs7SwmdXma_SyKuQHchuEyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Granted, there may be implementations that have issues with it.. I'm basing
this off the language in the latest httpbis draft (


If the request has a Content-Location header field, then the
sender asserts that the payload is a representation of the
resource identified by the Content-Location field-value.  However,
such an assertion cannot be trusted unless it can be verified by
other means (not defined by HTTP).  The information might still be
useful for revision history links.
If Content-Location is included in a request message, then it MAY be
interpreted by the origin server as an indication of where the user
agent originall  y obtained the content of the enclosed representation
(prior to any subsequent modification of the content by that user
agent).  In other words, the user agent is providing the same
representation metadata that it received with the original
A Content-Location field received in a request message is transitory
information that SHOULD NOT be saved with other representation
metadata for use in later responses.  The Content-Location's value
might be saved for use in other contexts, such as within source links
or other metadata.

As with everything tho, YMMV...

- James

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:18 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would say this is certainly a reasonable and logical assumption. Note,
> > however, that you need to account for the possible presence of the
> > Content-Location header within the POST request. If the POST includes a
> > Content-Location, it's value effectively establishes the base URI.
> I wish :) See the discussion associated with this issue;
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i80
> Mark.
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 02:06:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC