Re: Question re HTTP 200 Response Code

Thank you, Mark.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Sep 13, 2013, at 12:36, Mark Baker <mark@zepheira.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> I hope you have been well.
>> 
>> The W3C LDP Working Group [1] has been holding its 4th face-to-face meeting [2] this week.  One of the topics of discussion has been TimBL's comments [3] on the current editors draft of the LDP specification [4], specifically in regard to Section 4.10.2.3.
>> 
>> Tim wrote:
>> [[
>> 4.10.2.3 303 lis a basically very unsatisfactory design because of the round trip. As this is a new spec, suggest defined 20X code meaning like a 303 but containing the representation of the thing 303d to. This has been found to a problem in LD. LDP can avoid it now.
>> Benefit: First page back to user in one less round trip.
>> ]]
>> 
>> The WG has been discussing the possibility of a server returning a 200 (OK) instead of a 303, with the addition of a Location header to indicate that the server returned what the user wanted instead of what it requested.
>> 
>> Is that insane?  The current HTTP 1.1-bis draft [5] doesn't seem to preclude the use of a Location header with a 200 status code…
> 
> Well, I honestly don't see a meaningful difference between "the
> resource" and "the first page of the resource"; implementations may
> even choose to leave off their equivalent of the "pagenum=0"
> parameter. But if you're going to go this route, I think the header
> you're looking for is Content-Location, not Location.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark.
>