httpbis: Ticket #80: Content-Location isn't special
Link: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/80
Origin:
http://www.w3.org/mid/46AF60B0.7000104@gmx.de
Component:
p3-payload
RFC2616 Section 14.14, The definition of Content-Location ends with:
"The meaning of the Content-Location header in PUT or POST requests is undefined; servers are free to ignore it in those cases."
This was added in RFC2616 (does not appear in RFC2068).
I have no problem allowing servers to ignore it. However:
- It seems that the meaning of Content-Location is universal for messages that carry an entity; I'm not sure what's the point in claiming that meaning does not apply to PUT or POST.
- Also: every time a limited set of methods is mentioned somewhere it feels like problematic spec writing. What makes PUT or POST so special in comparison to other methods? Maybe that they are the only methods in RFC2616 that carry request entity bodies? In which case the statement should be rephrased accordingly...
Mails
History
: comment added; component, milestone set (Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:03:23 GMT)
-
component
set to auth
-
milestone
set to unassigned
: comment added; component changed (Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:26:46 GMT)
-
component
changed from auth to payload.
: comment added; owner set; milestone changed (Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:01:45 GMT)
-
owner
set to julian.reschke@gmx.de
-
milestone
changed from unassigned to 04.
Proposal: just drop "PUT and POST".
: comment added; milestone changed (Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:43:44 GMT)
-
milestone
changed from 04 to unassigned.
Related Information
Issues List Index