- From: Marc Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 13:08:23 -0700
- To: dmk@allegra.att.com (Dave Kristol)
- Cc: www-talk@www10.w3.org
At 12:46 PM 8/9/95, Dave Kristol wrote: > > It sounds like several of the respondants in this thread did not read the > > parent thread, in which it was explained that under the new HTTP/1.0 draft, > > a Location header should be sent with any 2xx response to identify "the URL > > needed to retrieve that same resource again..." In other words, the new > > spec requires a 200 OK status to include a Location header. > >I quibble with your interpretation of the spec. The actual words are > "For 2xx responses, the location should be the URL needed to > retrieve the same resource again..." >Apparently the "should" is ambiguous. You read it to mean that a >server *must* send a Location header, and its value "should be the >URL...". I read it to mean that *if* the server sends Location, its >value "should be the URL...". Okay, that makes sense, but I agree with your suggestion that required v. optional headers should be elaborated. This quibble does not mean, however, that a script should be prevented from sending location with a 2xx response. Marc Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 1995 16:11:05 UTC