Subject: Content-Location on 200 responses

From: Mike Kelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 20:08:26 +0000

I may be missing something very simple, but reading through
"Semantics, 6.1 : Identifying the Resource Associated with a
Representation"
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#page-14)
it seems like rule 4 cannot apply to 200 responses, as rule 1 should
be selected in preference.

Is that deliberate?

Cheers,
Mike

---

From: Nathan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 04:18:45 +0000

> be selected in preference.

Whoops! I just posted the same issue (but with a few more points to 
clarify).

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:10:00 +0100

> be selected in preference.

I believe so. Note that rule 1 is specific to GET, and rule 2 is 
specific to HEAD and GET.

So rule 4 could apply to a 200 response to PUT, for instance.

What's the issue here? A 200 response to a GET carrying a Content-Location?

Just because the C-L is present doesn't mean that the response isn't a 
representation of the resource at the effective request URI. If it 
wasn't, then 200 would be the wrong status code in the first place.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mike Kelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:43:49 +0000

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I believe so. Note that rule 1 is specific to GET, and rule 2 is specific to
> HEAD and GET.
>

Yes. This came up on public-lod because I suggested it might be a way
around the range-14 shenanigans.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Nov/0188.html

> representation of the resource at the effective request URI. If it wasn't,
> then 200 would be the wrong status code in the first place.
>

Agreed. Is it possible for both rules to apply?

The reason I ask is clarification on the following (taken from
discussion linked above):

"If a client wants to make a statement  about the specific document
[URI] then a response that includes a content-location is giving you
the information necessary to do that correctly."

Is that statement wrong?

Cheers,
Mike