Re: a test result

Marc Hedlund (
Wed, 9 Aug 1995 13:08:23 -0700

At 12:46 PM 8/9/95, Dave Kristol wrote:
> > It sounds like several of the respondants in this thread did not read the
> > parent thread, in which it was explained that under the new HTTP/1.0 draft,
> > a Location header should be sent with any 2xx response to identify "the URL
> > needed to retrieve that same resource again..." In other words, the new
> > spec requires a 200 OK status to include a Location header.
>I quibble with your interpretation of the spec. The actual words are
> "For 2xx responses, the location should be the URL needed to
> retrieve the same resource again..."
>Apparently the "should" is ambiguous. You read it to mean that a
>server *must* send a Location header, and its value "should be the
>URL...". I read it to mean that *if* the server sends Location, its
>value "should be the URL...".

Okay, that makes sense, but I agree with your suggestion that required v.
optional headers should be elaborated.

This quibble does not mean, however, that a script should be prevented from
sending location with a 2xx response.

Marc Hedlund <>