Re: A new HTTP response code say 209

On 2014-01-09 17:04, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> 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?

Content-Location just indicates that there is a more specific URI, but 
it doesn't change the fact that you got a representation of the resource 
identified by the request-URI.

(see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25.html#header.content-location>)

Best regards, Julian