Re: POST questions

Tony Sanders (
Mon, 04 Oct 1993 12:02:54 -0500

> "Return object headers
> The method shall return a set (possibly empty) of object headers for
> the newly posted object. If a URL has been assigned by the server,

> 2. At the same time I feel like changing the Live-URL: fields
> to a
> URI: blah vary=version, language, content-type
> field. I didn't get any feedback on that. Seemed sensible though,
> cleaner. Any objections? **** Speak now...
Sounds reasonable to me. So this replaces Live-URI and Version-URI
right? Where Version-URI: is URI: without any vary fields.

So POST might return something like:
HTTP/1.0 201 URI follows
BTW: I think 201 should allow a content-type so that browers that don't
grok it could just pop up the document which might be something as
simple as:
HTTP/1.0 201 URI follows
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/html

<A HREF="">Posted</A>
If the client groks the 201 reply then it can it just ignore the
message body. That way clients can be "dumb" and just accept all
2?? replies as ok and still work reasonably.

> > Message-Boundary: string
> the same way. Where have you seen the second method?
We talked about it at WWWWW I guess.

> (I would prefer it on the encoding rather than the type field)