- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:04:16 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, Arnaud LeHors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "Appelquist Daniel \(UK\)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
Julian Reschke writes:
> On 2014-01-09 12:57, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> Right -- to short-circuit this, in the TAG f2f this morning, I offered
>> the following paraphrase for the 2xx proposal:
>>
>> A 2xx response code signals all and only the short-circuiting of a
>> 303 response, with the content of what a GET to the Location header
>> of the 303 would have had, and a Content-location header giving what
>> would have been the Location of the 303.
>>
>> So no new 'semantics', in the sense that whatever you believe 303
>> means wrt what the relation between what you originally asked for, and
>> what you _eventually_ get, holds for 2xx between what you originally
>> asks for and what you get _immediately_.
>> ...
>
> I don't believe a new 2xx works for this case.
>
> Existing clients will interpret an unknown 2xx as 200 (at least that's
> what they should do), so they would interpret the response as being
> for the request-URI, not something else.
Why, if there's a Content-location header? They are supposed to
understand this wrt conneg, right?
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 16:05:09 UTC