Ticket #80 (closed design: fixed)
Content-Location isn't special
|Reported by:||firstname.lastname@example.org||Owned by:||email@example.com|
|Component:||p3-payload||Severity:||Active WG Document|
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."
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...
- Owner set to firstname.lastname@example.org
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 04
- Status changed from new to closed
- Resolution set to fixed
- Severity set to Active WG Document