9678Re: [rest-discuss] 30x Status codes
- Oct 2, 2007On Oct 2, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Nick Gall <nick.gall@...> wrote:I meant to say that origin servers sometimes don't know
> > On 10/2/07, Mark Baker <distobj@...> wrote:
> > > On 10/2/07, Nick Gall <nick.gall@...> wrote:
> > > > Wouldn't using the Content-Location HTTP header field also be
> a "good way to canonicalize your resources"?
> > >
> > > In theory, yes. In practice in the wild, not so much.
> > Agreed. But I was thinking about "Web API" (programmatic) use of
> > as opposed to typical browser behavior. As long as one documented
> > one's interface and clients used HTTP libraries with full access to
> > headers, then using Content-Location should be straightforward.
> > intermediaries (eg caches) typically strip such headers in
> flight. Do
> > they?
> I believe that's what Roy said, yes.
what their own real URI should be due to the presence of
intermediaries that rewrite incoming requests. And, because
those same intermediaries aren't smart enough to rewrite
responses that contain C-Location values (or simply don't know
if the origin server already did that for them), the resulting
field value is often wrong.
That could be solvable using relative values for the
location and a better description in the spec. I am not
convinced that the 209 code is needed. OTOH, I also heard
second-hand complaints from browser implementers that IIS is
sending bogus location values by default.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>