- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:49:09 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Oct 29, 2005, at 1:32 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> On Oct 28, 2005, at 3:13 PM, Jim Whitehead wrote: >>>> What if I remove the header from the response example, in addition >>>> to Jim's suggested change? >>>> >>> >>> Urk, bad idea. >>> >>> The use of Location with MOVE is to be consistent with the semantics >>> of the 201 response code. >>> >> Tacking on to my previous comment where I said I didn't think >> Location was REQUIRED with 201... note that in RFC2518, we had an >> example of MKCOL, where the response was 201 Created without a >> Location header: >> 8.3.3 Example - MKCOL >> This example creates a collection called /webdisc/xfiles/ on the >> server www.server.org. >> >>Request >> MKCOL /webdisc/xfiles/ HTTP/1.1 >> Host: www.server.org >> >>Response >> HTTP/1.1 201 Created > > Lisa, > > would you *please* read the sections from RFC2616 that define this? > > Again, from > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.30>: > > "The Location response-header field is used to redirect the recipient > to a location other than the Request-URI for completion of the request > or identification of a new resource." > > The location isn't different, so no new URI is needed. > > > Best regards, Julian Julian, I have read RFC2616. I read the relevant section immediately before posting which is why I thought that Location was probably not required with 201 Created, for the reasons you state. If you think we're saying something different, *please* explain why. Lisa
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2005 15:49:31 UTC