- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:27:01 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> TAG members,
>
> As discussed during our face-to-face this last week, I have put together
> a draft review of the draft spec for the HTTP 209 status code, at:
>
> https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2014/04/http-209.md
>
> I?d appreciate a second pair of eyes before we officially forward this
> on to Eric Prudhommeaux as a consensual TAG review.
I would also be happy if the primary goal stated by the document was not
"saving one round trip", especially if we decide to use 209 for other
"related" use cases, as we discussed during the f2f.
Thinking about it, 303+200 should be
209, with a Location: equal to Content-Location:
That leaves open definition of 209 where Location: is different from
Content-Location: and lead to a more generic definition of 209 which would
303 + a body which about what was requested, but not the result of
dereferencing the URL present in Location:
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2014 22:27:03 UTC