Subject: Location, fragments, and when not to use them

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:50:17 +0200

Hi there,

P2 currently says 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14.html#rfc.section.9.4.p.7>):

"There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location 
URI would not be appropriate:

     - With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location 
header field specifies the URI for the entire created resource.
     - With 305 Use Proxy."

This is not very helpful. as we have deprecated 305 (and advice-only 
anyway).

I'd like to reduce this to:

"There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location 
URI would not be appropriate. For instance, when it appears in a 201 
Created response, where the Location header field specifies the URI for 
the entire created resource."

Feedback appreciated,

Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:51:00 +1000

+1

I think this is editorial; we've already made the decisions behind it.

Regards,

On 18/05/2011, at 5:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> P2 currently says (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14.html#rfc.section.9.4.p.7>):
> 
> "There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URI would not be appropriate:
> 
>    - With a 201 Created response, because in this usage the Location header field specifies the URI for the entire created resource.
>    - With 305 Use Proxy."
> 
> This is not very helpful. as we have deprecated 305 (and advice-only anyway).
> 
> "There are circumstances in which a fragment identifier in a Location URI would not be appropriate. For instance, when it appears in a 201 Created response, where the Location header field specifies the URI for the entire created resource."
> 
> Feedback appreciated,
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:45:08 +0200

On 2011-05-19 02:51, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...

-> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1283>

Best regards, Julian