[8864] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: a test result
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roy Fielding)
Wed Aug 9 17:08:03 1995
To: hedlund@best.com (Marc Hedlund)
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Aug 1995 11:24:59 PDT."
<v02120d03ac4ea8112e7d@[204.156.156.16]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 17:06:02 -0400
From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
>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. If the server
>unilaterally changes the status line to 302 whenever a location header
>appears, then it is not conforming to the spec -- for which it should be
>forgiven since the spec has changed. However, servers should never ignore
>directives, and that hasn't changed.
WHOA!!! Hold on there. It doesn't say that. It says:
If the entity corresponds to a resource, the response may include a
Location header field giving the actual location of that specific
resource for later reference.
*may* is the operative word here!
Your CGI discussion is correct, but Location is optional.
....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
(fielding@w3.org) (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
