Subject: Clarification on use of Content-Location requested

From: Nathan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:59:34 +0000

Hi,

Just looking for a quick clarification on valid usage of 
Content-Location w/ 200 OK in response to a GET, is the following valid 
usage?

given:

current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, multiple representations
   /spec/2011-01-04

current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, html representation
   /spec/2011-01-04.html

current latest draft of the spec on 2011-01-04, txt representation
   /spec/2011-01-04.txt

latest working draft of the spec
   /spec/latest

If a client makes a GET request on /spec/latest with an Accept header 
indicating they want a text/html variant, then can the server respond 
with 200 OK and a Content-Location of /spec/2011-01-04.html?

Or must it 302/307 to /spec/2011-01-04 first?

And as an addition question, if this is fine (200 OK w/ Content 
Location), which is the preferred approach / best for the network?

Best,

Nathan

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:27:13 +0100

> with 200 OK and a Content-Location of /spec/2011-01-04.html?

Yes. Is there something in the spec that suggests otherwise?

> Location), which is the preferred approach / best for the network?

If you redirect you say "the resource is somewhere else". If you send 
200 with C-L you say "here's a representation, and a more specific URI 
is....". The latter saves a roundtrip.

Best regards, Julian